Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-01303/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-01303-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.

MICHAEL M. MEYER, PATRICIA J. SZERLIP

and VICKI WEATHERFORD,

Plaintiffs.

 v.

HORIZON HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 00-1303 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket No. 145]

This matter comes before the Court on Vicki Weatherford's Notice of Withdrawal as

Relator/Plaintiff ("Notice of Withdrawal") [Docket No. 144] and Defendant Summit Medical Center's

("Summit") Objection to Withdrawal of Vicki Weatherford [Docket No. 145]. 

In the Notice of Withdrawal, Plaintiff/Relator Weatherford states that she is withdrawing from

the above-captioned matter because she is recovering from pulmonary surgery and has been advised by

her doctor that it is not advisable to continue to be actively engaged in litigation. In its Objection to

Withdrawal, Summit argues that Weatherford may not withdraw from this action without properly

noticing the matter for a hearing and requesting Court approval. Summit also asks the Court to allow

Summit to take immediate discovery from Ms. Weatherford. Summit asserts two grounds for its

Objection to Weatherford's withdrawal: (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2); and (2) 31 U.S.C.

§ 3730(b)(1). However, neither of the authorities cited by Summit appears to provide adequate support

for its Objection. For example, Rule 41(a)(2) states that "an action shall not be dismissed at the

plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and conditions as the court deems proper." Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(2) (emphasis added). The general purpose of Rule 41(a) is to preserve a plaintiff's right to

voluntarily dismiss the case and start over so long as the defendant is not prejudiced as a result. See

Case 4:00-cv-01303-SBA Document 148 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105 (2nd Cir. 1953); see also 9 Wright

& Miller, Fed. Practice & Proc. § 2363, pp.151-52. Similarly, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) merely provides

that a qui tam action "may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent

to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting." 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). Here, however, the action

is not being dismissed, and the two other relators, Michael Meyer and Patricia Szerlip, remain in the

case. Further, the Court has no reason to doubt that Weatherford's withdrawal from the instant action

is based on valid medical reasons, and Summit has not presented the Court with any valid authorities

supporting its assertion that the Court may compel Weatherford to continue to act as a qui tam relator

if doing so would jeopardize her heath. To the extent that Summit is concerned about its access to

certain documents or information in Weatherford's possession, this can be addressed, as appropriate and

necessary, through third-party discovery. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Summit's Objection to Withdrawal of Vicki Weatherford

[Docket No. 145] is OVERRULED. The portion of Summit's Objection pertaining to discovery is

hereby REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 5/25/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:00-cv-01303-SBA Document 148 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2