Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00822/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00822-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-00822-MEJ 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 40

On June 15, 2016, the Court granted the United States of America, the participating states, 

and Plaintiff-Relator Brian Shields’ stipulation for the dismissal of this action pursuant to the 

terms and conditions of the parties’ June 6, 2016 settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 32. The 

Stipulation and Order provided as follows:

With prejudice as to Relator Brian Shields, this action is dismissed, 

with the exception of Relator’s claims for reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

expenses, and costs against Defendant Genentech and Defendant 

OSI Pharmaceuticals pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1); and/or 

Relator’s retaliation claims under any state and/or federal law, 

including 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) asserted against Defendant 

Genentech in Counts III, IV, V, and VI in Relator’s Second 

Amended False Claims Act Complaint.

Id. at 4. The Court acknowledged that “[n]o Answer has been served or filed, and no parties other 

than the United States, the participating states, and the Relator have appeared in this action.” Id. at 

2. 

The parties took no further action since the Court issued that Order, and on September 28, 

2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff-Relator to file a status conference statement addressing whether 

he intended to prosecute the remaining claims and the status of any communications with 

Defendants for litigation or settlement purposes. Dkt. No. 33. On October 5, 2016, PlaintiffCase 3:11-cv-00822-MEJ Document 41 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Relator filed a statement and a proposed order dismissing his remaining claims against Defendants 

and indicating he does not intend to pursue any other claims. See Stmt., Dkt. No. 34; Proposed 

Order, Dkt. No. 35. However, he indicated his claim for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

against both Defendants remained pending, and that he had made a demand to Defendants. See 

Stmt. The Court granted Plaintiff-Relator’s proposed order, dismissing Counts III, IV, V and VI 

of the Second Amended Complaint (Order, Dkt. No. 37), and ordered Plaintiff-Relator to file an 

updated status report by October 27, 2016, if this action had not already been dismissed in its 

entirety (Status Order, Dkt. No. 36). 

On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff-Relator filed a status report indicating he “does not intend 

to pursue any other substantive claims” and “[t]here now remains only Plaintiff-Relator’s statutory 

claim to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, pursuant to Title 31, United States Code, 

section 3730(d)(1), as to each Defendant.” Dkt. No. 38. He indicated that his counsel and 

“defense counsel have been striving to have substantive communications on the subject of 

resolving the Plaintiff-Relator’s claim to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” Id. The Court 

again allowed Plaintiff until November 11, 2016 to file a status report, unless this action was 

“already dismissed in its entirety.” Dkt. No. 39. 

On November 10, 2016, Plaintiff-Relator filed a status report indicating “[s]ettlement 

negotiations on Plaintiff-Relator’s fees claim are ongoing” and the parties’ have exchanged offers 

and counter-offers at this point. Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiff-Relator still has not served Defendants in 

this action.

It has been several months since this action has been dismissed on all claims other than 

those for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants have not yet been served or appear in 

this action. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff-Relator to show cause why the Court 

should not order him to serve Defendants or dismiss this action. The Court believes that both a 

schedule for resolving Plaintiff-Relator’s fee request and the Court’s Alternative Dispute 

Resolution resources may benefit the parties at this point. Plaintiff-Relator shall file a response of 

no more than 5 pages, double-spaced pages addressing the Court’s concerns by January 27, 2017. 

Additionally, Plaintiff-Relator shall serve Defendants will this Order and file a proof of service 

Case 3:11-cv-00822-MEJ Document 41 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

with the Court no later than January 13, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00822-MEJ Document 41 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 3