rural metro motion to intervene
DESCRIPTION
Rural Metro DoJ Motion to InterveneTRANSCRIPT
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ex rel. CARL CRAWLEY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:09-CV-01810-RDP ) RURAL/METRO CORPORATION, ) RURAL/METRO OF CENTRAL ) ALABAMA, INC., ) ) Defendants. )
MOTION TO PARTIALLY INTERVENE
The United States of America, through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to
31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3) and Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
respectfully requests that the Court permit the United States to partially intervene
in this qui tam action. In support of its Motion to Partially Intervene, the United
States shows as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. On September 10, 2009, Carl Crawley (the “Relator”) filed his
Complaint under the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
2. The Complaint alleges that Rural/Metro Corporation and Rural/Metro
of Central Alabama, Inc. (together, the “Defendants”) caused false claims to be
FILED 2011 Mar-10 PM 02:05U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 6
2
submitted to the United States for ambulance services provided to certain Medicare
and Medicaid beneficiaries.
3. On October 7, 2010, the United States filed a motion seeking to
extend the deadline under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 for the United States to make its
decision regarding whether or not to intervene in this action (Doc. #10).
4. By order dated October 8, 2010 (Doc. #11), this Court denied the
government’s motion and unsealed this matter.
5. By order dated February 24, 2011 (Doc. # 15), this Court ordered the
United States to notify the Court by March 10, 2011 of the government’s intention
to intervene in this matter or notify the Court that the United States declines to do
so.
RELIEF REQUESTED
6. The United States seeks to partially intervene for good cause in this
qui tam action. As described herein, the United States submits that good cause
exists because the United States has recently obtained information that was not
previously available. The government’s request to intervene is limited to only the
allegations in the Complaint which relate to the Defendants’ submission of claims
for ambulance transportation services provided to Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries who were being transported for dialysis services. The Relator has
Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 2 of 6
3
informed counsel for the United States that he does not oppose this motion.
A. Intervention For “Good Cause” Under the False Claims Act is Permitted and Warranted Based on Newly Obtained Information.
7. The FCA provides that even when the United States declines to
intervene at the outset of a qui tam action, the Court may “permit the government
to intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3).
In enacting Section 3730(c)(3), Congress recognized that the “limited opportunity
for Government involvement [during the investigation period] could in some cases
work to the detriment of the government's interests.” S. Rep. No. 345, 99th Cong.,
2d Sess. at p. 26-27 (reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at pp. 5266, 5291-92); see
also U.S. ex rel. Stevens v. State of Vt. Agency of Natural Resources, 162 F.3d 195,
200 (1998) (“Even if the government elects not to intervene at the outset, it may
intervene upon a showing of good cause at any time thereafter”).
8. Two reported decisions that address “good cause” intervention under
the FCA hold that good cause exists where the government discovers new evidence
subsequent to its original decision to decline. See United States ex rel. Stone v.
Rockwell Int'l Corp., 950 F. Supp. 1046 (D. Colo. 1996); United States ex rel. Hall
v. Schwartzman, 887 F. Supp. 60 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).
9. In Rockwell, the United States sought permission to intervene five
years after the initial unsealing of the complaint and three years after the United
Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 3 of 6
4
States filed its declination notice based on information the government discovered
in a related case being litigated before the United States Court of Federal Claims,
as well as additional information provided by relator. See Rockwell, 950 F. Supp. at
1049. In granting the government’s motion,
10. In Schwartzman, the district court found that the “subsequent
discovery of new and significant evidence which has altered its view of the
magnitude of the alleged fraud” constituted good cause to intervene.
Schwartzman, 887 F. Supp. at 62.
11. As in Rockwell and Schwartzman, the United States has obtained
additional information in this matter since the Court denied the government’s
motion to extend the intervention deadline in October 2010.1
B. The Relator and the Defendants Will Not Be Unduly Prejudiced if the Government is Permitted to Partially Intervene.
12. Neither the Relator nor the Defendants will be unduly prejudiced by
partial intervention by the United States.
13. The docket in this matter reflects that the procedural posture of this
case is essentially the same today as it was when the Court entered its October 8,
2010 order. As of today, the Defendants have not answered the Complaint and the
United States is unaware of any substantive discussions directly between the 1 The United States has not included in this motion the information that the government has obtained since October 2010. If necessary, the United States is prepared, at the Court’s request, to set forth in camera, this newly-discovered information.
Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 4 of 6
5
Relator and the Defendants which would be disrupted or harmed by the
government’s intervention.
14. In fact, as this Court is aware, even after the Court entered the
October 8, 2010 order, the United States did not stop investigating the matter. Over
the last few months, counsel for the United States and the Defendants have
continued to exchange information and documents related to the allegations in the
Complaint.
C. The United States Requests that it be Permitted Until March 31, 2011 to File a Complaint in Intervention.
15. If the United States’ motion is granted, because the government is
intervening in some but not all of the allegations in the Complaint, the United
States intends to file a complaint-in-intervention which complies with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and sets forth the basis for its claims against the
Defendants.
16. Accordingly, if this Court grants the United States’ motion to
partially intervene, and consistent with the Court’s February 24, 2011 Order, the
United States seeks leave until March 31, 2011 to file a complaint-in-intervention.
CONCLUSION
17. For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests
that this Court issue an Order (1) allowing the United States to partially intervene
Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 5 of 6
6
for good cause in this action and (2) permitting the United States until March 31,
2011 to file its complaint in intervention.
Respectfully submitted this the 10th day of March, 2011. JOYCE WHITE VANCE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ Lloyd C. Peeples LLOYD C. PEEPLES, III Assistant United States Attorney 1801 4th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 244-2116 Counsel for United States
Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 6 of 6