Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02888/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02888-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 151
Nature of Suit: Overpayments under the Medicare Act
Cause of Action: 28:2345 Medicare Recovery

---

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EX-PARTE MOTION FOR RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION, OR VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL

CASE NO. C 07-2888 JSW

1

DARIO de GHETALDI (126782)

JERRY E. NASTARI (151756)

AMANDA L. RIDDLE (215221)

COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP

700 El Camino Real

P.O. Box 669

Millbrae, CA 94030

Telephone: (650) 871-5666

Facsimile: (650) 871-4144

COLLEEN DUFFY SMITH (161163)

MICHAEL G. REEDY (161002)

McMANIS FAULKNER & MORGAN

A Professional Corporation

50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor

San Jose, California 95113

Telephone: (408) 279-8700

Facsimile: (408) 279-3244

Plaintiffs' Co-Counsel

[Other Counsel on Signature Page]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,

Defendant.

Case No. C 07-2888 JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING EXPARTE MOTION REQUESTING; 

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 

54(B) AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

SEVEN CAUSES OF ACTION, AND A 

STAY OF THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF 

ACTION, PENDING APPEAL OR 

ALTERNATIVELY,VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ EIGHTH 

CAUSE OF ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

On March 31, 2008, Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., submitted an ExParte Motion Requesting Entry of Judgment Under Rule 54(b), As To Plaintiffs’ First Seven 

Case 3:07-cv-02888-JSW Document 64 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EX-PARTE MOTION FOR RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION, OR VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL

CASE NO. C 07-2888 JSW

2

Causes Of Action, And A Stay Of the Eighth Cause of Action, Pending Appeal, Or 

Alternatively, Voluntary Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Cause Of Action Without Prejudice (the 

“Plaintiffs’ Motion”).

No opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion was filed by Defendant, MICHAEL O. LEAVITT.

The Court, having reviewed the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of 

the Plaintiffs’ Motion, no opposition having been submitted by Defendant, and good cause 

appearing therefore, issues the following order:

1. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS GRANTED

a. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), the Court hereby directs entry of final 

judgment as to the first seven causes of action of Plaintiffs’ complaint, which are: 1) Denial Of 

Equal Protection; 2) Deprivation of Due Process Rights; 3) Seeking a Declaration that 42 U.S.C. 

Section 1395w-4(J)(2) is Unconstitutional as Applied; 4) Seeking a Declaration that 42 C.F.R. 

Section 414.4 is Unconstitutional as Applied; 5) Unlawful Withholding or Delay in 

Reconfiguration of Locality Structure; 6) Arbitrary, Capricious or Abuse of Discretion in Failure 

to Reconfigure Locality Structure; and 7) Denial of Statutory Right to Reconfiguration.

b. As to Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action alleging Unlawful Delegation of 

Duty to Reconfigure, the Court stays all proceedings on the eighth cause of action until further 

notice, pending appeal by the parties.

n OR ALTERNATIVELY

2. Plaintiffs’ request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), for voluntary dismissal without 

prejudice as to the eighth cause of action alleging Unlawful Delegation of Duty to Reconfigure, 

is granted.

DATED: April ____, 2008

HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

9

Case 3:07-cv-02888-JSW Document 64 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2