UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 

STEPHEN J. GRAHAM,

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MOBILE DOCTORS USA, LLC, and 

MOBILE DOCTORS MANAGEMENT, LLC,

 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 12 C 2146 

Judge Coleman 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.

BURAK GEZEN, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LAKE MI MOBILE DOCTORS, P.C., and 

DIKE AJIRI, 

 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 13 C 1490 

Judge Coleman 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 

CAROLYN TYERS, LISA HIGGINS,

SHAPRAY HENDRICKS and LISA 

VERONA, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MOBILE DOCTORS USA, LLC, IN HOME 

DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, DIKE AJIRI, DAVE 

EVANS, and TYSON CONTRERAS, 

 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 13 C 5784 

Judge Coleman 

THE UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY CIVIL 

CASES PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE 
 The United States, by its attorneys Zachary T. Fardon, United States Attorney for the 

Northern District of Illinois, and Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery, moves to stay these 

consolidated qui tam lawsuits1 pending resolution of the related criminal proceeding, and in 

support thereof states as follows: 

 1. Starting in 2012, a series of three qui tam cases were filed in this district alleging 

that Mobile Doctors USA, LLC (“Mobile Doctors”), its owner and CEO, Dike Ajiri, and 

associated individuals and entities violated the False Claims Act by, inter alia, submitting claims 

to Medicare for medically unnecessary services and for services far in excess of the care actually 

provided to Mobile Doctors’ patients. The United States launched an extensive investigation into 

the activities of Mobile Doctors and Ajiri. The three cases remained under seal until June 4, 2014, 

when they were consolidated by Chief Judge Castillo, unsealed, and shortly thereafter assigned to 

this court. 

 2. On August 26, 2013, Dike Ajiri and a Mobile Doctors physician, Banio Koroma, 

were charged in a criminal complaint with healthcare fraud. On December 12, 2013, a federal 

grand jury returned a 14-count indictment, charging Ajiri and Koroma with criminal healthcare 

fraud, charges that mirror the civil healthcare fraud claims in these cases. Ex. A (copy of 

indictment, United States v. Ajiri, et al., No. 13 CR 68 (N.D. Ill.)). The indictment alleges that 

Ajiri and Koroma “participated in a scheme to cause Mobile Doctors to bill claims for medically 

unnecessary services, namely, physician home visits with patients that Ajiri and Koroma knew 

were not medically necessary and did not involve medical decision-making and examinations of 

the scope and complexity that Mobile Doctors represented to Medicare.” Id. at Count 1, ¶ 4. 

                                                             1

 Chief Judge Castillo consolidated the three above-captioned cases on June 4, 2014. 

See Dkt. No. 12 (No. 12 C 2146). Accordingly, the United States is filing this motion to stay in 

the docket of the first-filed case, United States ex rel. Graham v. Mobile Doctors USA, LLC et 

al., No. 12 C 2146. 
3 

The indictment further alleges that the Ajiri “personally altered Mobile Doctors documents, and 

instructed Mobile Doctors personnel to do the same, so that certain established-patient visits were 

billed to Medicare at the highest level . . . knowing that Mobile Doctors physicians’ visits with 

patients typically did not qualify for such billing and knowing that there was nothing that provided 

medical justification for such billing.” Id. at ¶ 6. Additionally, the indictment alleges that “in 

order to increase Mobile Doctors’ patient population and thus the number of patient visits that 

could be billed to Medicare, defendant Ajiri caused Mobile Doctors physicians such as defendant 

Koroma to certify patients as confined to their homes and requiring home health services, knowing 

that many such patients were not confined to their homes and did not require home health services 

and that home health agencies submitted claims to Medicare seeking payment for such services.” 

Id. at ¶ 7. The indictment also alleges that Ajiri “caused Mobile Doctors to submit bills to 

Medicare seeking payment for ultrasound examinations on Mobile Doctors patients, even when 

AJIRI knew that such tests were not medically necessary.” Id. at ¶ 10. Accordingly, the 

indictment contains allegations that overlap completely with the allegations in these consolidated 

qui tam cases, particularly the portions in which the United States has intervened. 

 3. The criminal case has been assigned to Judge Tharp. The criminal defendants 

were arraigned on August 27, 2013, and a trial date has not yet been set 

4. On May 29, 2014, the United States notified the court of its decision to intervene in 

parts of the Graham (No. 12 C 2146), Gezen (No. 13 C 1490) and Tyers (No. 13 C 5784) actions 

that allege that Mobile Doctors USA, LLC, Mobile Doctors Management, LLC, Lake MI Mobile 

Doctors, P.C. (collectively “Mobile Doctors”) and Dike Ajiri defrauded Medicare by: (1) 

submitting and/or causing the submission of false claims to Medicare by upcoding claims for 

evaluation and management services; (2) falsely certifying beneficiaries as homebound and 
4 

eligible for home health services, and (3) submitting and/or causing the submission of claims for 

medically unnecessary tests. 

 5. The United States, with the agreement of counsel for relators Graham, Gezen, 

Tyers, Higgins, Hendricks, and Verona, seeks to stay the consolidated civil lawsuit until the 

criminal case has been resolved. A stay in this case is warranted given the complete overlap 

between the issues presented in the civil suit and the criminal proceeding. 

 6. This court has the inherent power to stay civil proceedings in the interests of justice 

pending the completion of the criminal proceeding. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 

(1936). A “court may use its discretion to determine whether to stay civil proceedings when the 

interests of justice require such action[,]” and as such federal courts have “deferred civil 

proceedings pending the completion of parallel criminal prosecutions when the interests of justice 

seemed to require such action.” Benevolence Int’l Found., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 200 F. Supp. 2d 935, 

938 (N.D. Ill. 2002), citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27 (1970); Admiral Ins. Co. 

v. Fed. Sec., Inc., No. 94 C 5649, 1997 WL 695727 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 1997) (additional citations 

omitted). 

 7. Courts consider a variety of factors when determining whether to issue a stay, 

including, for example: (1) the posture of the criminal proceeding; (2) whether the civil and 

criminal matters involve the same subject; (3) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding 

expeditiously with the litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to the 

plaintiff of a delay; (4) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on 

the defendant; (5) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use 

of judicial resources; (6) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (7) the 

interest of the public in pending civil and criminal litigation. Benevolence Int’l Found. 200 F. 
5 

Supp. 2d at 938 (citations omitted); see also United States v. All Meat and Poult. Prods., No. 02 C 

5145, 2003 WL 22284318, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2003); Cruz v. County of DuPage, No. 96 C 

7170, 1997 WL 370194, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 1997). Courts also consider whether the 

government is a party in both the civil and criminal case. Chagolla v. City of Chicago, 529 F. 

Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Ill. 2008), citing Cruz v. County of DuPage, No. 96 C 7170, 1997 WL 370104, 

at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 1997). Each of these factors counsels in favor of staying this civil case 

until the criminal case resolves. 

 8. The first and second factors favor a stay as a grand jury has returned an indictment 

that contains overlapping allegations against the same parties as the civil suit, and the criminal 

proceeding remains pending. See Salcedo v. City of Chicago, No. 09 C 5354, 2010 WL 2721846 

(N.D. Ill. July 8, 2010) (granting a stay of a civil case pending resolution of parallel criminal 

proceedings, noting that “other cases in this district indicate that once an indictment is handed 

down, as is the case here, a stay is appropriate.”) (citing Cruz, 1997 WL 370194, at *3); see also 

Bank of Am. v. Veluchamy, 2010 WL 1693108, at *4 (N.D. Ill. April 26, 2010) (“the strongest case 

for staying civil proceedings is where the defendant has already been indicted for a serious offense 

based on the same matter as that in the civil case.”); Hollinger Intern., Inc. v. Hollinger Inc., 2008 

WL 161683, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan 16. 2008) (same) (collecting cases); see also Dominguez et al., v. 

The Hartford Fin. Svs. Group, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 2d 902, 907 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (“the similarity of 

issues in the underlying civil and criminal actions is considered the most important threshold in 

determining whether to grant a stay.”). 

 9. As to the third factor, the United States (the real party in interest in the consolidated 

qui tam suits) faces greater prejudice if the case moves forward at this time than it would if the case 

is stayed until the criminal case resolves. In a civil case, the defendants are entitled to discovery 
6 

that they may not be entitled to in the course of a criminal case. The United States’ interests may 

be implicated if the defendants in a civil case gain access to materials that they may not have 

access to during the course of their criminal case. See Cruz, 1997 WL 370194 at *2 (“the 

strongest case for deferring civil proceedings until after completion of criminal proceedings is 

where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative 

action involving the same matter. The noncriminal proceeding, if not deferred, might undermine 

the party’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, expand rights of criminal 

discovery . . ., expose the basis of the prosecution in advance of criminal trial, or otherwise 

prejudice the case.”) (citing SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). 

Courts have found that a trial court should not permit a defendant in a criminal case “to use liberal 

civil discovery procedures to gather evidence to which he might not be entitled under the more 

restrictive criminal rules.” Benevolence Int’l, 200 F.Supp.2d at 935, collecting cases citing 

Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1962); see also United States v. Phillips, 580 F. 

Supp. 517, 519-520 (N.D. Ill. 1984). On the other hand, the United States has no interest in 

proceeding expeditiously with its civil case while its criminal case remains outstanding. 

 10. Fourth, the potential prejudice to the criminal defendants in litigating the civil case 

at this time far outweighs any potential prejudice that may exist if the case is delayed until the 

criminal case resolves. Indeed, the defendants would also benefit if the civil case were stayed. 

First, the defendants would not have to spend time and resources simultaneously litigating a civil 

case and defending themselves in a criminal case. Second, defendants would be subject to civil 

discovery that could be broader than otherwise permitted in a criminal case. See Chagolla, 529 F. 

Supp. 2d at 946. Third, if the civil case were to proceed with the criminal case pending, the 

discovery in the civil case could implicate the defendants’ Fifth Amendment privilege against 
7 

self-incrimination. If civil discovery were to go forward in this case, the defendants would be in a 

difficult position as they would either engage in discovery that could implicate their constitutional 

rights or they would invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and face 

adverse inferences drawn against them in their civil case. See, e.g., Harris v. City of Chicago, 266 

F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2001) (“the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against 

parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against 

them.”) (citation omitted); Cruz, 1997 WL 370194 at *2. Accordingly, any prejudice that the 

defendants face in delaying this civil matter until the criminal case against them is resolved is 

outweighed by the prejudice that the defendants could face if the civil case goes forward at this 

time. Accordingly, the third and fourth factors weigh in favor of granting the stay until the 

criminal case resolves. 

 11. Fifth, judicial economy is served by a stay because there are issues common to both 

cases, and some of those issues may be resolved during the criminal matter. Under 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3731(e), a final judgment in a related criminal proceeding can estop the defendant from denying 

the essential elements in a civil FCA action involving the same transaction. See also In re Grand 

Jury Proceedings, 995 F.2d 1013, 1018 n.11 (11th Cir. 1993) (“although stays delay civil 

proceedings, they may prove useful as the criminal process may determine and narrow the 

remaining civil issues.”); United States v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 545 F.2d 869, 873 (3d Cir. 1976) (“it 

might well have been that resolution of the criminal case would moot, clarify, or otherwise affect 

various contentions in the civil case.”); United States v. All Meat and Poultry Prods., 2003 WL 

22284318, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2003) (if the civil proceedings are stayed, “resolution of the 

criminal matter may eliminate much of the Court’s work in the civil action by simplifying the 

issues.”); Twenty First Cent. Corp. v. Labianca, 801 F. Supp. 1007, 1011 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (a stay 
8 

“may streamline later discovery since transcripts from the criminal case will be available to the 

civil parties.”). 

 12. Sixth and seventh, the interests of third parties, and the public interest in particular, 

are best served by staying the civil case. Courts have recognized that the public has an interest in 

law enforcement that is not at play in a private civil case. Eastland, 307 F.2d at 487 (“The very 

fact that there is a clear distinction between civil and criminal actions requires a government policy 

determination of priority: which case should be tried first. Administrative policy gives priority to 

the public interest in law enforcement.”); In re Ivan F. Boesky Secs. Litig., 128 F.R.D. 47, 49 

(S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“the public interest in the criminal case is entitled to precedence over the civil 

litigation[.]”) (emphasis in original). The public has an interest in ensuring that the criminal case 

move forward without interruption from a civil case, particularly where the public’s interest in the 

civil case will be preserved until after resolution of the criminal proceedings. 

 13. Counsel for the United States has consulted with counsel for the relators and 

counsel for the defendants against which the United States is proceeding in the claims on which it 

has elected to intervene. Neither the relators nor the defendants object to this motion. 
9 

 WHEREFORE, the United States requests that this court stay these consolidated civil cases 

until after completion of United States v. Ajiri, et al., No. 13 CR 68 (N.D. Ill.). 

          Respectfully submitted, 

ZACHARY T. FARDON 

United States Attorney 

By: s/ Eric S. Pruitt 

ERIC S. PRUITT 

Assistant United States Attorney 

219 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

(312) 353-5496 

eric.pruitt@usdoj.gov 

       STUART F. DELERY 

 Assistant Attorney General 

       MICHAEL D. GRANSTON 

 SARA MCLEAN 

 CHARLES J. BIRO 

 Commercial Litigation Branch 

 Civil Division 

 U.S Department of Justice 

 Post Office Box 261, Ben Franklin Station 

 Washington, D.C. 20044 

 (202) 305-2335 

 

 Attorneys for the United States of America 

 
10 

Certificate of Service 

 The undersigned Assistant United States Attorney hereby certifies that in accordance with 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, LR 5.5, and the General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF), the following 

document: 

THE UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY CIVIL 

CASES PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE 

was served pursuant to the district court’s ECF system as to ECF filers, if any, and was sent by 

first-class mail on June 30, 2014, to the following non-ECF filers: 

Rob Cohen 

The Rob Cohen Law Office, LLC 

444 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 301 

Wilmette, Illinois 60091 

(847) 256-0800 

Counsel for Mobile Doctors USA, 

LlLC, Mobile Doctors Management, 

LLC, Lake MI Mobile Doctors, P.C., 

and Dike Ajiri. 

 

s/ Eric S. Pruitt 

 ERIC S. PRUITT 

Assistant United States Attorney 

 219 South Dearborn Street 

 Chicago, Illinois 60604 

 (312) 353-5496 

 eric.pruitt@usdoj.gov