Opinion ID: 1460550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissing the Entire Second Amended Complaint

Text: In its opinion of January 6, 2005, the district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in part, but also upheld substantial portions of Relator's SAC. In Bledsoe II, the district court's discussion of the procedural history of the case reaffirmed this disposition. Bledsoe II, 2005 WL 3434378, at  (Accordingly, Relator's claims for alleged fraudulent billing for continuous monitoring services, unbundling of setup fees, daily fees and components of kits, and DRG upcoding and miscoding for bronchitis and asthma were allowed to proceed. (citations omitted)). Nevertheless, at the conclusion of Bledsoe II, the district court dismissed the entire action with prejudice and without further analysis of these claims. Id. at . The district court gave no reason for dismissing Relator's entire SAC, and we likewise can discern no reason justifying a dismissal of the entire action. We accordingly hold that the district court erred in dismissing Relator's entire SAC. [22]