Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03010/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03010-17/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, ex rel. 

FRANK SOLIS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, 

INC., SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP., 

and MERCK & CO., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-03010-MCE-EFB 

ORDER 

This lawsuit was originally filed under seal on November 4, 2009, pursuant to the 

qui tam provisions of the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. (“FCA”). 

Defendants, who are pharmaceutical companies, include Millennium Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., and Merck and Co. (“Defendants” unless otherwise 

indicated). The so-called “Relator” plaintiff, Frank Solis, a former sales employee who 

worked at various points for all three Defendants (“Relator” or “Plaintiff”), claims that the 

companies fraudulently marketed and/or promoted the use of two drugs, Integrilin and 

Avelox, for so-called “off label” uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. 

In so doing, according to Relator, Defendants “caused” physicians to improperly 

prescribe the drugs and, consequently, to submit false claims for federal reimbursement 

Case 2:09-cv-03010-MCE-EFB Document 164 Filed 09/01/15 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 

27 

28 

2

to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE (United States Military Healthcare). The 

government allegedly paid those claims without knowing that they were ineligible for 

reimbursement. Following a three-year investigation, the United States and all twentyfour states named in the initial complaint chose not to intervene, and Relator’s Complaint 

was subsequently unsealed on December 20, 2012. 

 In response to motions to dismiss filed on behalf of each of the Defendants, 

Relator filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 27, 2013. Defendants 

subsequently attacked the viability of Plaintiff’s FAC through three separate motions. 

Defendants Schering-Plough Corp. and Merck & Co. (collectively “Schering”) filed a joint 

Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1)1

 on grounds that Relator’s complaint was barred by the FCA’s 

so-called “public disclosure” bar. Defendant Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

(“Millenium”) subsequently joined in that motion. Additionally, two other motions, one 

filed jointly by Schering and the other by Millenium, argued that the various causes of 

action pled in the FAC are substantively deficient in contravention of Rule 12(b)(6). By 

Memorandum and Order filed March 26, 2014, this Court granted Defendants’ Rule 

12(b)(1) motion on grounds that Relator’s “combination use” allegations were precluded 

under the FCA’s so-called “public disclosure” bar precluding suits whose allegations 

have already been disclosed. Because Relator’s FAC contained other allegations 

beyond combination use, however, including assertions pertaining to a completely 

different drug, Avelox, as well as allegations of fraud, improper billing, and impermissible 

kickbacks, the Court permitted Relator to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) 

omitting the combination use allegations.2 

 1

 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless 

noted otherwise. 

2

 Because the Rule 12(b)(6) motions challenged the sufficiency of the FAC’s allegations at a point 

when the question of the Court’s jurisdiction over this qui tam action had not yet been determined, and 

since the parameters of a SAC without the combination use allegations would likely be far different than its 

predecessor, the Court denied those motions without prejudice to being renewed following submission of 

the SAC. 

Case 2:09-cv-03010-MCE-EFB Document 164 Filed 09/01/15 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 

27 

28 

3

Relator’s SAC was filed on April 5, 2014, and that amended pleading resulted in 

the filing of yet another motion to dismiss challenging the court’s jurisdiction under Rule 

12(b)(1), this time offered by Defendant Millenium alone. That Motion was granted by 

Memorandum and Order filed March 30, 2015, on grounds that the allegations against 

Millenium, which included violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and various 

improper uses of Integrilin, had already been disclosed by five federal cases filed 

between February 16, 2007, and May 10, 2007. Because the Court found that Relator 

could not qualify as an “original source” of those prior disclosures, the Court ruled that 

the “public disclosure” bar applied and granted the Motion as to Millenium. Moreover, 

because the federal FCA claims were barred on that basis, even assuming the 28 state 

FCA claims had any merit, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

them. 

On April 3, 2015, Defendants Schering filed the present Motion for 

Reconsideration now before the Court, which alternatively seeks dismissal for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). As set forth below, while Schering’s 

reconsideration request is DENIED, the alternatively pled Motion to Dismiss is 

GRANTED.3

Defendants’ reconsideration request is made on grounds that the conclusion 

section of Schering’s own Motion (ECF No. 113), contained a statement that apart from 

the arguments advanced in that Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “Schering hereby adopts” 

Millenium’s argument, as set forth in Millenium’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, that “the Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims asserted against Schering.” ECF No. 

113-1, 20:21-23. On that basis, Schering argues that the Court committed clear error in 

not adjudicating Millenium’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion as to Schering as well, despite the fact 

that neither the notice of the motion nor argument section of the points and authorities 

otherwise mentioned the 12(b)(1) request in any way. 

 3

 Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered 

Defendants’ Motion submitted on the briefing in accordance with Local Rule 230(g). 

Case 2:09-cv-03010-MCE-EFB Document 164 Filed 09/01/15 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 

27 

28 

4

A passing reference in the conclusion does not adequately put Relators on notice 

the Schering was in fact mounting a jurisdictional challenge. The Court is unpersuaded 

by Schering’s argument that since Millenium was able to join in one of Schering’s 

motions by reference within the body of its motion, Schering should now be allowed to 

do so as well. Unlike Schering in the present instance, Millenium made a statement 

formally joining in Schering’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See ECF No. 80, 

p. 12, n.5. The present passing reference by way of conclusion is simply not 

comparable. Accordingly, Schering’s reconsideration request is DENIED. 

As indicated above, however, aside from Schering’s argument that the Court 

should already have ruled on Schering’s jurisdictional challenge, which the Court rejects, 

Schering also alternatively brings its own freestanding motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(1). For the reasons outlined by Schering in its papers, which the Court finds 

persuasive, the Court concludes that there is no appreciable difference between the 

allegations made against Schering and Millenium in the SAC. The Court also finds that 

the prior disclosures made within the five previously filed 2007 lawsuits is equally 

applicable to both entities. Consequently, the reasoning already employed by the Court 

in granting Millenium’s Motion to Dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

(ECF No. 128) applies equally to Schering, is incorporated herein by reference, and 

mandates that Schering’s jurisdictional motion also be granted. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:09-cv-03010-MCE-EFB Document 164 Filed 09/01/15 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 

27 

28 

5

In sum, then, Defendant Schering’s Motion for Reconsideration or Alternatively to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 159) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. To the extent it 

requests reconsideration of the Court’s prior Memorandum and Order of March 30, 2015, 

it is DENIED, but the alternatively pled request that the action against Defendant 

Schering be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED without leave 

to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 31, 2015 

Case 2:09-cv-03010-MCE-EFB Document 164 Filed 09/01/15 Page 5 of 5