Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

_ Case 3:03-cv-00685-PCD D0cument8 Filed 05/19/2004 Page10f3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W
?i§li*iYl_?i_$?Ili]i?,lEYYT _______I____ X wss a‘F1"/rw
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i L--wUl_.-. E
ex rei. KEVIN cossns, ; {yy;] i M&Y&’MW
pialnuiffs, ; vayplyiiyéyijgi I/ = - l
- against — : No. 3:03CV685/GLG) ..
MEMORANDUM DECISION L
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY, : .
Defendant. : J
————————— -— ——-~——------—-----———-— ~·—X ;
St. Louis University, one of the forty defendants in the MDL A
litigation, has filed a supplemental memorandum [Doc. # 4] in l
support of the motions to dismiss filed in the MDL litigation, 3
which emphasizes that the incorrect legal entity was named in the J
Relator’s original complaint and the Government’s complaint—in— l
intervention and, therefore, the Government’s amended complaint- {
in-intervention should not relate back. Rather, it should be Y
dismissed as untimely filed. a
The Relator originally named St. Louis University Hospital, i
which it claims is a non—existent legal entity. In 1998, St. ‘
Louis University sold its hospital to Tenet Healthcare and, after 3
the sale, St. Louis University Hospital, for the first time, l
became a legal entity. The Government's first complaint—in- {
intervention also incorrectly named St. Louis University A
Hospital, but an amended complaint was then filed on November 2, I
2002, naming St. Louis University. I A
The Government responds that Rule l5(c)(3) provides that
l

_ Case 3:03-cv-00685-PCD Document 8 Filed 05/19/2004 Page 2 of 3 E
`
.
technical amendments correcting the name of a party relate back
to the filing of the original complaint. Further, even if 1
incorrectly named, St. Louis University did business as St. Louis
University Hospital, it responded to the Government subpoena J
using the name St. Louis University Hospital, and it was not A
until St. Louis University was served with the Government’s i
complaint-in—intervention that it notified the Government of the 8
mistaken name. The Government then promptly filed an amended i
complaint correcting the name of the defendant. i
We hold that the Government's amended complaint—in—
intervention, which corrected the name of the defendant to St. l
Louis University, related back to the Government’s original i
ccmplaint—in-intervention. And, as we held in our May 12, 2004 W
opinion in the MDL litigation, that complaint relates back to the 3
date the Relator filed the original gui tam complaint. 1
Accordingly, for these reasons and for the reasons set forth E
in the Court's Opinion of May 12, 2004 in the MDL litigation, in R
re. Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation, 3:03MDl505(GLG), the Q
Court adheres to its ruling in the MDL litigation and DENIES the l
Motion to Dismiss in all respects except that the Motion to i
Dismiss on Statute of Limitations grounds is GRANTED as to all rj
common—law claims for payment by mistake, unjust enrichment and 4
recoupment, which are based on Medicare claims filed prior to Q
March 31, 1988. é
2
l
ll

I
M
_ . . Case 3:03-cv-00685-PCD D0cument8 Filed 05/19/2004 Page30f3
SO ORDERED.
51
Date: May YY , 2004. ii
Waterbury, Connecticut.
GERARD L. GOETTEL, n;
United States District Judge

-/1
.i

Z!


E!

i

an