ABC v. DEF
Case Number: 1:2020cv05396
Filed: April 5, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Nature of Suit: Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a))
Cause of Action: 31 U.S.C. ยง 3731 False Claims Act - Procedures

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 26, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 313 ORDER: On June 26, 2024, the parties filed a form entitled: "Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Dispositive Motion to a Magistrate Judge." Dkt. No. 311. This form lists the relevant motion as "LAUSD's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs." Id. Its description on ECF states that it refers to the motions filed at Dkt. Nos. 300 and 303, respectively. The Court has signed the consent form and is filing that order contemporaneously herewith. In doing so, the Court understa nds the parties to have intended to refer to the magistrate judge the disposition of each of the two pending motions for attorneys' fees, filed at Dkt. Nos. 300 and 303. If this understanding is incorrect, the parties must notify the Court by no later than July 1, 2024. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/26/2024) (rro)
June 20, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 307 ORDER: In the Court's June 11, 2024 order, the Court directed the parties to discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge over the outstanding motions for attorneys' fees. See Dkt. Nos. 300, 303. Dkt. No. 305 at 1. The Court stated that, if the parties so agreed, they should file a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Dispositive Motion to a Magistrate Judge form, available at https://www.uscourts .gov/sites/default/files/ao085a.pdf. See id. The parties instead filed a Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, which must be signed by all of the partiesnot just the parties subject to the outstanding motions fo r attorneys' fees. See Dkt. No. 306 (emphasis added). If the parties intended instead to file a Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Dispositive Motion to a Magistrate Judge form in accordance with the Court's June 11, 2024 order, they are instructed to do so by no later than June 28, 2024. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/20/2024) (rro)
June 11, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 305 ORDER: To conserve resources, to promote judicial efficiency, and in an effort to achieve a faster disposition of this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties must discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge over the outstanding motions for attorneys' fees. See Dkt. Nos. 300, 303. If both parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge for these motions, counsel for the defendant must, within two week s of the date of this order file on ECF a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Dispositive Motion to a Magistrate Judge form, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao085a.pdf. The executed form should be filed on E CF as a "Proposed Consent to Magistrate Judge Disposition of Motion," and be described using the "Proposed Consent to Magistrate Judge Disposition of Motion" filing event in accordance with ECF Rule 13.27. If the Court approves that form, all further proceedings regarding the motions for attorneys' fees filed at Dkt. Nos. 300, 303 will then be conducted before the assigned Magistrate Judge rather than before me. Any appeal from any ruling by the assigned Magistrate J udge on the pending motions for attorneys' fees would be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as it would be if the consent form were not signed and so ordered. If either party does not so consent, the pa rties must file a joint letter, within two weeks of the date of this order advising the Court that the parties do not consent, but without disclosing the identity of the party or parties who do not consent. The parties are free to withhold consent without negative consequences. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/11/2024) (tg)
June 5, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 296 ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Notice is hereby given that, subject to the approval of the Court, Defendants, Los Angeles Unified School District and Austin Beutner, in his official capacity as former Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unifi ed School District, substitutes Mary Kellogg, State Bar. No. 223258 (pending Pro Hac Vice admission to this Court), as counsel of record in place of Alessandra Denis and Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. The substitution of counsel is hereby approved and so ORDERED. Attorney Mary Kellogg for Los Angeles U.S.D., added. Attorney Alessandra Denis terminated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 6/5/2024) (jca)
February 28, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 259 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 236 Motion to Dismiss filed by Niagara Falls Public School District, Mark Laurrie, 245 Report and Recommendations, 161 Motion to Dismiss filed by Stamford Public School District, Tamu Lucero, [2 00] Motion to Dismiss filed by Wake County Public School District, 165 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Richard Carranza, Los Angeles Unified School District, Jose M. Torres, PhD, Meisha Porter, New York City Department of Education, Austin Beu tner, Chicago Public School District, 149 Motion to Dismiss filed by Kriner Cash, Buffalo Public School District, 163 Motion to Dismiss filed by Somerville S.Dt. (Somerville, PK-12). For the reasons described above, the Court adopts the Report in full and dismisses the claims against the Moving Defendants with prejudice. The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause no later than March 21, 2023 why his claims under the FCA against the Non-Appearing Defendants should not be dismissed wi th prejudice, and why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to any state law claims brought by him against those defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 14 9, 161, 163, 165, 200, and 236. Mark Laurrie (in his official capacity as Superintendent), Tamu Lucero, Cathy Quiroz Moore (in her official capacity as Superintendent), Niagara Falls City School District, Meisha Porter (in her official capacity as the current Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education), Somerville Public School District, Wake County Public School District, Chicago Public School District, Mary Skipper (in her official capacity as Superintendent), Jose M. Torres , PhD (in his official capacity as Superintendent), Richard Carranza (in his official capacity as the former Chancellor of New York City Department of Education) and Kriner Cash (in his official capacity as Superintendent) terminated. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/28/2023) (rro)
January 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 246 ORDER: The parties' January 13, 2023 application, Dkt. No. 243, is denied without prejudice. Because the stipulation of voluntary dismissal involves the dismissal of state claims with prejudice, the parties are directed to file a letter that complies with Rule 1.F of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. The letter should address whether or not this stipulation requires prior approval of any governmental agency. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/23/2023) (rro)
October 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 199 ORDER: Following a telephone conference with the parties today, and as stated on the record, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) No later than October 25, 2022, Wake County Public School District and Cathy Quiroz Moore (collectively, the "Wake County Defendants") shall re-file their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed at ECF No. 167, since the Clerk of Court found their filing deficient for the reasons stated in the corresponding 7/11/22 ECF docket entry. Plaintiff-R elator need not re-file his opposition to such motion (which is incorporated in ECF No. 179) and the Wake County Defendants need not re-file their reply memorandum, which is filed at ECF No. 189. (2) Plaintiff-Relator shall meet and confer with the W ake County Defendants and, no later than October 25, 2022, file a letter to the ECF docket advising the Court whether he contends that his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) pleads state-law claims against the Wake County Defendants and, if so, no ting the page and paragraph numbers in the Second Amended Complaint where such claims are plead. (3) No later than October 25, 2022, Plaintiff-Relator shall file a letter to the ECF docket advising the Court whether he contends that his Second Amende d Complaint (ECF No. 19) pleads state-law claims against Defendants Massachusetts Department of Education ("MDEC") and Jeffrey Riley ("Riley") and, if so, noting the page and paragraph number in the Second Amended Complaint where such claims are plead. (4) Plaintiff-Relator shall meet and confer with Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District, Austin Beutner, San Diego Unified School District, Dr. Lamont Jackson and Cindy Marten (collectively, the "California Defend ants"), and, no later than November 1, 2022, file to the ECF docket an appropriate document dismissing all claims against the California Defendants. (5) Plaintiff-Relator shall meet and confer with Defendants New York City Department of Educatio n, Richard Carranza, Meisha Porter, Buffalo Public School District and Kriner Cash (collectively, the "New York Defendants"), and, no later than November 1, 2022, file to the ECF docket an appropriate document dismissing all state-law and c ity-law claims against the New York Defendants. (6) No later than November 1, 2022, Plaintiff-Relator shall file to the ECF docket an appropriate document dismissing all state-law claims against Defendants Niagara Falls Public School District and Mar k Laurrie (collectively, the "Niagara Falls Defendants"). (7) If the Defendants who have not yet appeared in this action, specifically the MDEC, Riley, the Niagara Falls Defendants, Camden City Public School District and Katrina McCombs (co llectively, the "Non-Appearing Defendants"), have been served, then, no later than November 1, 2022, Plaintiff-Relator shall seek certificates of default against the Non-Appearing Defendants from the Clerk of Court. (8) If the Non-Appearing Defendants have not been served, or if the Clerk of Court declines to issue a certificate of default against any of these parties due to defective service, then no later than November 1, 2022, Plaintiff-Relator shall show cause why his Second Amend ed Complaint as against the Non-Appearing Defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to timely serve the Non-Appearing Defendants. (9) Extensions of any of the foregoing deadlines shall be granted for good cause shown. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 10/19/2022) (Aaron, Stewart)
May 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 151 ORDER re: 135 Memo Endorsement, Set Deadlines/Hearings. Accordingly, no later than June 27, 2022, Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by BPSD and Cash. No later than July 29, 2022, Defendants BPSD and Cash shall file any reply. SO ORDERED. ( Responses due by 6/27/2022, Replies due by 7/29/2022.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 5/17/2022) (kv)
April 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 144 ORDER: Pursuant to the Court's Orders at ECF Nos. 127, 130, and 138, Plaintiff along with the NYC DOE Defendants, the Chicago BOE Defendants, the LA USD Defendants, the Stamford BOE Defendants, and the San Diego USD Defendants are directed to appear for a telephone conference on Wednesday, April 27, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. to discuss the letters filed at ECF Nos. 126, 128, and 136. At the scheduled time, the parties shall each separately call (888) 278-0296 (or (214) 765-0479) and enter access code 6489745. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 4/26/2022) (kv)
February 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 86 OPINION AND ORDER re: 68 MOTION to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, filed by Loudoun County Public School District, Scott A. Ziegler. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Loudoun County Public School District and Scott A. Ziegler (ECF No. 68) is DENIED. It is hereby Ordered that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Loudoun County Public School District and Scott A. Ziegler that are contained in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (filed at ECF No. 19) are severed and the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the severed claims to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 2/14/2022) (kl) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
January 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER: The Court has received the proposed consent order signed by Plaintiff and defendant Loudoun County School District. Dkt. No. 76. Consent to a magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) requires the consent of all def endants in an action. Because only one of the defendants in this case consents to proceed before a magistrate judge, the case is not referred. However, the parties may consent to a magistrate judge's authority for specific motions, including the pending motion which applies to defendant London County School District. The appropriate form for doing so is available on the Southern District of New York's website. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/28/2022) (ate)
January 12, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER: On December 28, 2021 the Court directed the parties to confer as to whether they consent to proceeding before the assigned Magistrate Judge, and to submit either an executed consent form or a joint letter no later than January 11, 2022. Dkt. No. 69. Neither document has been submitted. Accordingly, the parties are directed to comply with the Court's December 28, 2021 order forthwith, and in no event later than January 18, 2022. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a copy of this order on Defendants and retain proof of service. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/12/2022) (ama)
January 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 72 ORDER: Following a telephone conference with the parties today, and for the reasons stated on the record, it is hereby ORDERED, as follows: 1. The deadline to complete service of process on all remaining Defendants, including those Defendants who have failed to return executed waivers of service and those Defendants represented by the New York City Law Department, is extended to January 31, 2022. 2. No later than January 18, 2022, Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion by Defendants Loudoun County Public School District and Scott A. Ziegler (the "Loudoun County Defendants") to dismiss (ECF No. 68). No later than January 25, 2022, the Loudoun County Defendants shall file any reply. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 1/4/2022) ( Responses due by 1/18/2022, Replies due by 1/25/2022., Service due by 1/31/2022.) (ks)
December 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER: To conserve resources, to promote judicial efficiency, and in an effort to achieve a faster disposition of this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties must discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge. If both parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge, counsel for the defendant must, within two weeks of the date of this order file on ECF a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, a copy of which is attached to this order, as further set forth herein. If either party does not consent to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned Magist rate Judge, the parties must file a joint letter, within two weeks of the date of this order advising the Court that the parties do not consent, but without disclosing the identity of the party or parties who do not consent. The parties are free to withhold consent without negative consequences. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/28/2021) (vfr)
December 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER: The parties are directed to appear for a telephone conference on Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. EST to discuss the status of this case. At the scheduled time, the parties shall each separately call (888) 278-0296 (or (214) 765-0479) and enter access code 6489745. SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 1/4/2022 at 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 12/16/2021) (js)
October 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER: Regarding Relator's request for "'pro se' credentials" (id. at 1): Relator is directed to file with the Court an executed Notice of Pro Se Appearance form, available online at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/node/82 6, along with an executed Consent to Electronic Service form, available online at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov /forms/consent-electronic-service-pro-se-cases. The Court will take appropriate action thereafter. The Clerk of Court is respectfully d irected to issue Summonses corresponding to the Defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint, and to mail a copy of them to Relator at the following address: 55 West 116th Street, #159, New York, NY 10026. Relator's deadline to serve the Second Amended Complaint on Defendants is hereby extended to November 19, 2021. Relator's deadline to file proof of such service with the Court is hereby extended to December 6, 2021. ( Service due by 11/19/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 10/20/2021) (rro) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.
April 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT, 1. The amended complaint shall be unsealed thirty days after entry of this Order and, in the event that the relator has not moved to dismiss the action, service upon the defendants by the relator is authorized as of that da te. If the relator voluntarily dismisses the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within this thirtyday period, the relator may seek to modify this Order with the consent of the United States and the Sta tes or by motion on notice to the United States and the States. 2. All documents filed in this action prior to the entry of this Order shall remain under seal and not be made public, except for, thirty days after entry of this Order, the relators com plaint and amended complaint, this Order, and the Governments and the States Notices of Decision to Decline Intervention (the Notices of Decision). The relator will serve upon the defendants this Order and the Notices of Decision only after service o f the amended complaint. 3. Upon the unsealing of the amended complaint, the seal shall be lifted as to all other matters occurring in this action after the date of this Order. 4. The parties shall serve all pleadings, motions, and notices of appeal filed in this matter, including supporting memoranda, upon the United States and the States. The United States and the States may order any transcripts of depositions. The United States and the States may seek to intervene with respect to the allegat ions in the relators complaint, for good cause, at any time, or seek dismissal of this action. 5. All orders of this Court in this matter shall be sent to the United States and the States by the relator. 6. Should the relator or any defendant propose that the amended complaint or any of its allegations be dismissed, settled, or otherwise discontinued, the party or parties proposing such relief must solicit the written consent of the United States and the States (with the exceptionof the State of Maryland) before applying for Court approval. 7. In accordance with the Maryland False Health Claims Act, Md. Code Ann., Health Gen, § 2-604(a)(7), the State of Maryland having declined to intervene in this matter, all claims asserted on behalf of Maryland are dismissed without prejudice. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 03/03/2021) (nmo)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ABC v. DEF
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?