Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. CIV.S-03-1658 LKK DAD PS

ex rel. GENE L. ROGERS, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

STATE OF CALIFORNIA NO. CIV.S-05-1999 LKK DAD PS

ex rel. GENE L. ROGERS, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE CONSOLIDATION

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

These related cases came before the court on December 16,

2005, for hearing on defendant County of Sacramento’s motion to

consolidate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 

Plaintiff Gene L. Rogers, M.D., proceeding pro se, appeared on his

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 154 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 5
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

1 It appears to be unsettled whether an order of consolidation

is dispositive or nondispositive for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Compare United States v. $8,221,877.16, 330 F.3d 141, 145

(3d Cir. 2003)(magistrate judge ordering consolidation) with Giovanni

v. Lynn, 48 F.3d 908, 911 n.4 (5th Cir. 1995)(magistrate judge

recommending consolidation). Out of an abundance of caution findings

and recommendations will be issued with respect to the motion to

consolidate.

2

own behalf. Clair I. Van Dam appeared on behalf of defendant. 

Having considered all written materials submitted in connection with

the motion, and after hearing oral argument, the undersigned will

recommend that the motion be granted and these actions be

consolidated for all purposes.1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 42(a) provides as

follows:

When actions involving a common question of law

or fact are pending before the court, it may

order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the

matters in issue in the actions; it may order all

the actions consolidated; and it may make such

orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend

to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The district court has broad discretion

under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” 

Investors Research Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Central

District of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). The

purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary cost or delay that

would result from proceeding separately with claims and issues

sharing common aspects of law or fact. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 550-51 (8th Cir. 1998). As

the language of Rule 42(a) indicates, the threshold requirement for

consolidation is whether the actions involve common facts or legal

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 154 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

issues. Yousefi v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1064-

65 (C.D. Cal. 1999). Nonetheless, even if common facts or legal

issues exist, consolidation is inappropriate if it results in

"inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party." HBE

Corp., 135 F.3d at 551 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b)). “The party

seeking consolidation bears the burden of showing that it would

promote judicial convenience and economy.” Powell v. National

Football League, 764 F. Supp. 1351, 1359 (D. Minn. 1991).

Here, defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that

these two cases should be consolidated. As discussed on the record

during the hearing on the pending motion, the legal claims presented

by plaintiff in these two qui tam actions are virtually identical. 

The primary claim in both actions is that the County of Sacramento is

violating the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) by providing non-emergent health care to

undocumented immigrants under the County Medically Indigent Services

Program. Both actions appear to contain claims that such care

amounts to the fraudulent misappropriation of federal, state and

county funds under both the federal False Claims Act and the

California False Claims Act. Both actions also allege, albeit in a

somewhat difficult to decipher fashion, that providing such care

induces plaintiff, other county workers and undocumented immigrants

to engage in unlawful conduct. Finally, both actions seek the same

relief, including but not limited to recovery of the federal, state

and county funds expended in violation of the law as well as punitive

damages. Because these actions involve common facts and legal

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 154 Filed 12/20/05 Page 3 of 5
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

2 In the event these findings and recommendations are adopted,

the undersigned will require that all discovery be completed by March

17, 2006, and all law and motion be completed by May 19, 2006. The

final pretrial conference and trial will be re-set for July 10, 2006,

at 1:30 p.m. and September 26, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., respectively.

4

issues, the undersigned will recommend that they be consolidated for

all purposes.

The undersigned further finds that neither inefficiency,

inconvenience, nor unfair prejudice to a party will result from

consolidation. On the contrary, in light of the commonality of

questions involved, consolidation will allow the court and the

parties to proceed with these matters expeditiously. In the event

the district judge assigned to these matters adopts these findings

and recommendations, the undersigned will re-schedule the discovery

and law and motion cut-off dates as well as the dates for the final

pretrial conference and trial.2 Rescheduling the cases so they may

proceed on the same track while providing time for the completion of

discovery in both will serve to mitigate any potential for prejudice

that might result from consolidation at this stage of the

proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for consolidation be granted;

2. The actions denominated as United States of America ex

rel. Gene L. Rogers, M.D., No. CIV.S-03-1658 LKK DAD PS and State of

California ex rel. Gene L. Rogers, M.D., No. CIV.S-05-1999 LKK DAD PS 

be consolidated;

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 154 Filed 12/20/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. Case No. CIV.S-03-1658 LKK DAD PS be designated as the

“master file”;

4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to copy the amended

complaint, answer and any cross- or counter-complaints in case No.

CIV.S-05-1999 LKK DAD PS and place said copies in the master file;

5. The Clerk be directed to administratively close case

No. CIV.S-05-1999 LKK DAD PS; and

6. The parties be directed to file all future pleadings,

motions and other filings ONLY in case No. CIV.S-03-1658 LKK DAD PS.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 20, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.prose\rogers1658.consolidation

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 154 Filed 12/20/05 Page 5 of 5