Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00124/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00124-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex

rel. MASOUD SAMANDI,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

MATERIALS AND

ELECTROCHEMICAL RESEARCH

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0124-TUC-DCB (BGM)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ settlement agreement. Relator

Masoud Samandi and Defendants Materials and Electrochemical Research Corporation,

James C. and Helga Withers, Raouf O. and Elia Loutfy, Roger Storm and Witold Kowbel

seek dismissal of this cause of action with prejudice. Pursuant to the Rules of Practice in this

Court, the matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for a report and

recommendation. The Magistrate recommends the District Court, after its independent

review of the record, accept the parties’ settlement agreement and dismiss this cause of action

with prejudice as to all parties.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2005, Plaintiff-Relator Masoud Samandi filed this action in the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona seeking damages based on violations

Case 4:05-cv-00124-DCB-BGM Document 372 Filed 12/06/12 Page 1 of 4
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

Case Number CV-05-124-TUC-DCB, United States ex rel. Masoud Samandi v.

Materials and Electrochemical Research Corporation; James C. Withers; Raouf O. Loutfy;

Witold Kowbel; Roger Storm; Helga Withers; and Elia Loutfy.

- 2 -

of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33.1

 On March 31, 2008, the United States of

America, on behalf of itself and its agencies and subunits (collectively “the Government”)

filed its Notice of Election to Intervene in Part and Decline in Part (Doc. 32). On May 7,

2008, the Government filed its corresponding Complaint in Intervention (Doc. 34) against

certain Defendants, and through which it intervened with respect to certain of Samandi’s

claims. The Government amended its Complaint. See Amended Compl. (Docs. 250 & 253).

On December 22, 2010, Plaintiff-Relator Samandi filed his Motion to Sever (Doc.

270), which was subsequently granted by the Court on January 4, 2011. Order 1/4/2011

(Doc. 279). On December 29, 2010, Plaintiff-Relator Samandi filed a Stipulation of

Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 271) which provided in part that “[a]fter the claims in the

Government’s complaint in this matter have been finally resolved or adjudicated through a

final and unappealable determination, the parties to the qui tam complaint will engage in

good faith efforts to settle or mediate any unresolved claims in the qui tam complaint.” Stip.

of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 271) at ¶ 2. On January 4, 2011, the Court granted PlaintiffRelator’s motion for dismissal. Order 1/4/2011 (Doc. 280).

On February 2, 2011, a seven day jury trial commenced on the Government’s

intervened claims against Defendants. See Minute Entry 2/2/11 (Doc. 299). The jury

returned a verdict against the Government and in favor of the Defendants on all intervened

claims. Minute Entry 2/16/2011 (Doc. 310).

On May 27, 2012, Plaintiff-Relator sought to reopen the litigation as to the remaining,

unintervened, claims. Notice and Mem. in Support of Pl. Samandi’s Mot. to Reopen and

Restore the Action (Doc. 347). Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to attend

mediation. Order 6/11/2012 (Doc. 351). On August 7, 2012, a settlement conference was

held before Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald. Minute Entry 8/7/2012 (Doc. 363).

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Honorable David C. Bury has referred this

Case 4:05-cv-00124-DCB-BGM Document 372 Filed 12/06/12 Page 2 of 4
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

Pursuant to the Court’s November 20, 2012 Order (Doc. 371), the Government was directed

to “submit its objections, if any, on or before November 21, 2012 [to Magistrate Judge Macdonald].”

Order 11/20/2012 (Doc. 371) at 2.

3

The Confidential Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and shall be filed

under seal.

- 3 -

matter to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for review of the final settlement agreement and

issuance of a report and recommendation regarding the same. Order 11/20/2012 (Doc. 371).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff-relator Samandi and Defendants Materials and Electrochemical Research

Corporation, James C. and Helga Withers, Raouf O. and Elia Loutfy, Roger Storm and

Witold Kowbel have submitted their November 16, 2012 Confidential Settlement Agreement

to the Magistrate Judge for his review. The Government has not objected to the agreement.2

Having reviewed the settlement agreement, executed by the parties on November 16,

2012, and adopted herein by this reference,3

 the Magistrate Judge hereby recommends that

the District Court ACCEPT the settlement agreement and dismiss this matter WITH

PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff and all parties, all parties in interest and all persons that may be

claiming by or through Plaintiff, including without limitation the United States Government

and any agency or department thereof, including without limitation its Department of Justice.

Pursuant to the Court’s November 20, 2012 Order (Doc. 371), 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and

Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party may serve and file written

objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within seven (7) days

after being served with a copy. Order 11/20/2012 (Doc. 371) at 2. The objecting party(ies)

may file a reply within three (3) days of the filing of any response to an objection. Id.

Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge

may be deemed a waiver of the party’s right to de novo review of the issues. See United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900

Case 4:05-cv-00124-DCB-BGM Document 372 Filed 12/06/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

(2003). If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-05-124-

TUC-DCB.

DATED this 5th day of December, 2012.

Case 4:05-cv-00124-DCB-BGM Document 372 Filed 12/06/12 Page 4 of 4