Hood v. Amgen, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 TERESA HOOD, No. 2:18-cv-02981-WBS-AC 13 Plaintiff-Relator, 14 v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION 15 AMGEN INC., et al., 16 Defendant. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 On May 21, 2021, plaintiff-relator filed a notice of 20 voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the following counts: 21 Count 1 (Federal False Claims Act - 31 U.S.C. § 3279(a)(1)(A)); 22 Count 2 (Federal False Claims Act - 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B)); 23 Count 3 (California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act – Insurance 24 Code § 1871.7); Count 4 (California False Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t. 25 Code §§ 12651 (a)(1) and (a)(2)); and Count 5 (Texas False Claims 26 Act/Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § § 27 32.039, 36.001–36.132). (See Docket No. 37.) The court 28 dismissed these claims without prejudice on June 4, 2021. (See 1 Docket No. 41.) The only remaining count – Count 6 (Retaliation 2 in Violation of the Federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3 3730(h)) – is subject to an arbitration agreement, of which 4 plaintiff-relator only recently became aware. (See Docket No. 38 5 at ¶ 4.) The United States, California, Texas and the California 6 Department of Insurance are not interested parties to Count 6 of 7 the complaint. (See id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff-Relator now seeks to 8 stay Count 6 during the arbitration process. (See id. at ¶¶ 10– 9 11.) Plaintiff-Relator also requests that the court retain 10 jurisdiction of the matter and that any party may file a petition 11 with this court to enforce the arbitrator’ decision. (See id.) 12 The court believes that an order staying this case, 13 rather than dismissing it outright as Amgen suggests, is 14 appropriate. The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to the 15 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 16 cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 17 for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 18 248, 254 (1936). District courts ordinarily have authority to 19 issue stays where such a stay would be a proper exercise of 20 discretion. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005). 21 Consideration of such a stay calls for “the exercise of judgment 22 which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even 23 balance.” See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. This order to stay is 24 issued without prejudice to defendant moving to dismiss this 25 action following arbitration if any issues remain. 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff-relator’s Motion 27 to Stay Proceedings, (Docket No. 38), is hereby GRANTED. 28 The parties shall file a joint status report within 14 1 days after arbitration is completed to inform the court whether 2 any issues remain for this court’s resolution. All dates are 3 | vacated. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED . 5 | Dated: June 22, 2021 a bho A hh WILLIAM B. SHUBB 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28