Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01002/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 376
Nature of Suit: other
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act - Liability

---

-1- 18-cv-1002-MMA-MSB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ex rel. SARAH DUNTSCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERIOR CARE PHARMACY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-1002-MMA-MSB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 65]

Pending before the Court is the government’s motion for reconsideration pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Doc. No. 65. Defendants David Walrod and 

Justus Benjamin filed oppositions, to which the government replied. Doc. Nos. 68–70. 

The Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Doc. No. 71. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Court DENIES the government’s motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly allow motions for 

reconsideration. However, pursuant to Rule 60(b), a court “may relieve a party or its 

legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” upon a showing of 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 

Case 3:18-cv-01002-MMA-MSB Document 72 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 4
-2- 18-cv-1002-MMA-MSB

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

that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new 

trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the 

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Motions for relief from 

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court 

and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 

F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004).

Additionally, Civil Local Rule 7.1.i governs motions for reconsideration in this 

District. The rule provides that a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any

motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any 

judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” CivLR 7.1.i.1. The party seeking 

reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7.1.i.1 must show “what new or different facts 

and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such 

prior application.” Id. 

II. DISCUSSION

In this qui tam action initiated in May 2018, the government filed an Intervenor’s 

Complaint on January 4, 2024. Doc. No. 34. On May 23, 2024, the Court issued an 

Order ruling on Defendants David Walrod and Justus Benjamin’s motions to dismiss and 

Defendant Derek Ishaque’s motion to stay. Doc. No. 64. The government now asks the 

Court to reconsider its dismissal of Claims 6 and 7 under Rule 60(b)(1) and (b)(6).

1

 

1

 The government filed its motion for reconsideration twelve days after the Court issued the challenged 

Order. The Court assumes without deciding that the government can seek relief under Rule 60(b). See 

Am. Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted) (“A motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or 

amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) if it is filed within [twenty-eight] 

days of entry of judgment. Otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or 

order.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And to the extent the government’s motion is 

Case 3:18-cv-01002-MMA-MSB Document 72 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
-3- 18-cv-1002-MMA-MSB

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

Namely, the government argues that the Court’s ruling on these claims “was based on a 

misapprehension of applicable law” and seeks reconsideration to correct a mistake of 

law. Doc. No. 65 at 2, 7. 

In its May 23, 2024 Order, the Court dismissed Claims 6 and 7, stating in full:

The government’s sixth claim is for payment by mistake, and its seventh claim 

is for unjust enrichment. The government fails to identify any applicable law 

providing for these causes of action. According to the government in 

opposition, these are common law doctrines. See Doc. No. 59 at 22–24. The 

government then proceeds to cite cases from the Ninth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, 

and the District Courts for the District of Columbia, Eastern District of 

Michigan, and District of Arizona. Id. The Court cannot guess what law 

applies to these claims. Because the government fails to identify the 

applicable state law providing for these common law claims, the Court 

DISMISSES Claims 6 and 7 with leave to amend. See, e.g., Romero v. 

Flowers Bakeries, LLC, No. 14-cv-05189-BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

15868, at *34 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) (“[D]ue to variances among state laws, 

failure to allege which state law governs a common law claim is grounds for 

dismissal.”) (citing In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 781 F. Supp. 

2d 955, 966 (N.D. Cal. 2011)).

Doc. No. 64 at 14. 

It is true that the Court stated in one instance that the government’s claims were 

subject to dismissal because the government failed to identify any applicable state law. 

But the Court did not rule that the government could not pursue these claims pursuant to 

federal common law. Rather, the Court dismissed these claims because “[t]he 

government fail[ed] to identify any applicable law providing for these causes of action” 

and the Court “cannot guess what law applies to its claims.” Doc. No. 64 at 2 (emphasis 

added). 

more appropriately analyzed under the Rule 59(e) standard, the Court notes that relief is not warranted 

because the government identifies no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in 

controlling law. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters. v. Estate 

of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Case 3:18-cv-01002-MMA-MSB Document 72 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
-4- 18-cv-1002-MMA-MSB

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

The government offers no persuasive reason to deviate from the principle 

identified in Romero that a failure to identify the governing law supporting a common 

law claim warrants dismissal of the claim without prejudice to repleading the claim and 

identifying the appropriate law. Romero v. Flowers Bakeries, LLC, No. 14-CV-05189-

BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15868, 2016 WL 469370 at *12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016); 

see also In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., 293 F. Supp. 3d 888, 933 (N.D. Cal. 2018). 

Contrary to the government’s assertion, Doc. No. 65 at 4, the government did not plead 

that federal common law governed Claims 6 and 7, nor did it argue in opposition to the 

motions to dismiss that the claims were pursuant to federal common law.

2

 Due to the 

government’s failure to identify any applicable law governing these two claims, federal 

common law or otherwise, the Court was unable to assess the viability of these claims. It 

was for this reason the claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend

to identify the applicable law. The government identifies no mistake of law undermining 

this ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the government’s motion for 

reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 3, 2024

 _____________________________

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO

United States District Judge

2

 The phrase “federal common law” is absent from both the government’s Intervenor Complaint and its 

opposition to the motions to dismiss. 

Case 3:18-cv-01002-MMA-MSB Document 72 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 4 of 4