Johnson Ex Rel. United States v. University of Rochester Medical Center
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7980
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Keith Johnson, M.D. filed a qui tam action under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital for allegedly un supervised residents’ Medicare/Medicaid billing.
- The United States declined to intervene; the district court unsealed the complaint and the University moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Johnson sought leave to amend, arguing amendments should be freely given absent futility, bad faith, or repeated deficiencies; the University moved for Rule 11 sanctions.
- In a February 19, 2010 judgment, the district court dismissed the action and denied leave to amend, concluding amendments would be futile.
- Johnson moved for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1); the district court denied reconsideration, holding no error in its discretionary denial of leave to amend.
- Separately, the district court granted sanctions against Johnson’s counsel under Rule 11 or, alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, after a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely or jurisdictionally barred | Johnson contends timely appeal permitted under Rule 4(a). | University argues lack of appellate jurisdiction due to untimely notice of appeal. | Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. |
| Whether the district court correctly denied reconsideration of the amendment ruling | Former Rule 15(a) allowed amendment as of right; reconsideration should grant leave. | Court properly exercised discretion to deny leave to amend; no error in denial. | Rule 60(b)(1) denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether sanctions against counsel under Rule 11 or §1927 were proper | Sanctions were improper or not properly justified. | District court properly imposed §1927 sanctions for frivolous conduct and bad faith. | Sanctions under §1927 affirmed; Rule 11 alternative not necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2003) (Rule 4 tolling is mandatory and jurisdictional for timing of appeals)
- Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions; §1927 requires bad faith and notice)
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (right to amend is subject to district court’s scheduling-order limits)
- Salovaara v. Eckert, 222 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2000) (timing of appeals when sanctions or related orders are involved)