Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01757/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01757-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DYNAMIC MEDICAL SYSTEMS, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01757-NONE-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE 

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO STAY DISCOVERY AND CONTINUE 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

(ECF No. 84)

On May 19, 2020, Defendants Dynamic Medical Systems, LLC, Joerns Healthcare, LLC, 

Plum Healthcare Group, LLC, Covenant Care California, LLC, Mariner Health Care 

Management Company, and Cambridge Healthcare Services (“Defendants”),

1

filed a motion to 

stay discovery and continue the scheduling conference currently scheduled for June 9, 2020, due 

to pending motions to dismiss this action. (ECF No. 84.) Defendants have noticed the hearing 

on the motion for the same date as the scheduling conference, June 9, 2020. (Id.) Prior to the 

filing of the instant motion, Defendants conferred with counsel for Relator via email and 

telephone, and counsel for Relator represented that Relator will file an opposition to the instant 

requests for both the continuance of the scheduling conference and for the stay of discovery. 

(ECF No. 84 at 4.) 

 

1

 While Invacare Corporation appears as a defendant on the docket, and a summons was issued, it does not appear a 

summons was returned executed nor that they have appeared in the action. (ECF No. 19.) 

Case 1:17-cv-01757-WBS-SAB Document 85 Filed 05/21/20 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

2

The notice period for Defendants’ motion does not comply with the twenty-eight (28) day 

period for normal civil motions under the Local Rules, and if construed entirely as a discovery 

motion Local Rule 251 under the twenty-one (21) day notice period, does not comply with that 

Rule’s requirement for a joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement. L.R. 230, 251. 

Nonetheless, given the limited content of the motion and issues underlying the motion, and the 

fact that the scheduling conference is scheduled for the same day as the hearing, the Court shall 

allow the motion to proceed as noticed, and order all parties not joining in Defendants’ motion to 

file either a statement of non-opposition, or an opposition brief within the deadlines put forth 

below. See L.R. 230 (“Except as otherwise provided in these Rules or as ordered or allowed by 

the Court, all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or 

Magistrate Judge . . . not less than twenty-eight (28) days after service.”); L.R. 251(d) (“Refusal 

of any counsel to participate in a discovery conference, or refusal without good cause to execute 

the required joint statement, shall be grounds, in the discretion of the Court, for entry of an order 

adverse to the party represented by counsel so refusing or adverse to counsel.”); L.R. 102 

(“Unless contrary to law, the Court in its discretion may make such orders supplementary or 

contrary to the provisions of these Rules as it may deem appropriate and in the interests of justice 

and case management under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1 in a special 

circumstance.”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party that has not joined in the 

Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 84), shall file either a statement of non-opposition or an 

opposition brief on or before June 2, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01757-WBS-SAB Document 85 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 2