United States of America et al v. Hpc Healthcare, Inc. et alMOTION to dismiss for failure to state a claimM.D. Fla.August 31, 20161 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF FLORIDA ex rel. NANCY CHASE, Plaintiffs, Case No.: 8:10-cv-001061-JSM-TGW v. CHAPTER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Florida corporation; CHAPTERS HEALTH, INC., a Florida corporation; LIFEPATH HOSPICE, INC., a Florida corporation; GOOD SHEPHERD HOSPICE, INC., a Florida corporation; RONALD SCHONWETTER,M.D.; SAYED HUSSAIN, M.D.; DIANA YATES; RICHARD M. WACKSMAN, M.D.; MOBILE PHYSICIAN SERVICES, P.A., a Florida Professional Association; JSA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and SUPERIOR RESIDENCES, INC., a Florida corporation; Defendants. __________________________________ DEFENDANT’S, SUPERIOR RESIDENCES, INC., MOTION TO DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED FALSE CLAIMS ACT COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Superior Residences, Inc. (hereinafter “Superior Residences”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., hereby moves for the entry of an order dismissing the Fourth Amended False Claims Act Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (hereinafter “Fourth Amended Complaint”) for failure to state a claim Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID 2636 2 upon which relief can be granted and failing to plead with specificity and as grounds therefore states as follows: 1. On March 24, 2016 the Relator, Nancy Chase (hereinafter “Chase”) filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, first naming Superior Residences as a defendant in the lawsuit. This was Chase’s fifth attempt to state a cause of action under the False Claims Act. 2. Subsequently, on May 19, 2016, Superior Residences was served with process. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 12, Fed. R. Civ. P., the response to the complaint was due no later than June 9, 2016. 3. However, Superior Residences inadvertently failed to serve a response to the Fourth Amended Complaint due to excusable neglect, within the time period permitted by Rule 12. 4. Thereafter, on August 1, 2016 Superior Residences filed a Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint. [D.E. 180]. On August 2, 2016, this Honorable Court entered an order granting an extension of time to respond the Fourth Amended Complaint. 5. The Fourth Amended Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice as the Relator, Nancy Chase (hereinafter “Chase”) has (1) filed an impermissible shotgun pleading, (2) failed to state a cause of action under the False Claims Act, and (3) brought claims barred by the statute of limitations. Standard of Review for Motion to Dismiss 6. The requirement for pleading a claim under the False Claims Act is extremely high. To state a claim under the False Claims Act, a relator must satisfy two pleading standards. First, the complaint must contain ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 19 PageID 2637 3 … Although it is axiomatic that the Court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint, this tenet is ‘inapplicable to legal conclusions.’ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. ‘[L]egal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, [but] they must be supported by factual allegations.’ Id. at 679. … A False Claims Act complaint must also ‘state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see United States ex rel Clausen v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 290 F.3d 1301, 1310 (11th Cir. 2002). The particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) is satisfied if the complaint alleges ‘facts as to time, place, and substance of the defendant’s alleged fraud, specifically the details of the defendants’ allegedly fraudulent acts, when they occurred, and who engaged in them.’ Hopper v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 588 F.3d 12318, 1324 (11th Cir.2009) (citing Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1310). Generally, in order to plead the submissions of a false claim with particularity, ‘a relator must identify the particular document and statement alleged to be false, who made or used it, when the statement was made, how the statement was false, and what the defendants obtained as a result.’ United States ex rel. Matheny v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 671 F.3d 1217, 12225 (11th Cir. 2012). U.S. v. All Children’s Health System, Inc., 2013 WL 1651811, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2013). Argument and Memorandum of Law I. Relator Filed An Impermissible Shotgun Pleading 7. The Fourth Amended Complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading and, therefore, must be dismissed. 8. “Shotgun pleadings are those that incorporate every antecedent allegation by reference into each subsequent claim for relief or affirmative defense.” Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006). Shotgun pleadings “wreak havoc on the judicial system.” Id. (quoting Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130 (11th Cir. 2001). The Fourth Amended Complaint reincorporates all Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 19 PageID 2638 4 one hundred and seventy-seven (177) paragraphs of factual allegations into each of the five (5) counts and each count then reincorporates the allegations in the counts that precede it. “The Eleventh Circuit has routinely and explicitly condemned ‘shotgun pleadings,’ Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 979 n. 54 (11th Cir.2008), and has stated that neither the district courts nor the defendants are required to ‘sift through the facts presented and decide for itself which were material to the particular cause of action asserted.’ Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecomms. Inc., 146 Fed.Appx. 368, 372 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting Strategic Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1296 n. 9 (11th Cir.2002) (citations omitted)).” Small v. Amgen, Inc., 2 F.Supp.3d 1292, 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2014). 9. It is clear that all of the allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint do not apply to Superior Residences and, thus, it should not be required to sift through hundreds of allegations in order to determine which apply to Superior Residences. Chase’s shotgun approach to pleading its claims against twelve (12) different defendants creates a convoluted complaint that fails to give Superior Residences sufficient notice of the basis of the claims against it. The Fourth Amended complaint is replete with allegations that “Defendants” engaged in certain behavior, yet it is clear that all of the defendants could not have participated in all of the acts set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint. 10. Lastly, the only allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint that clearly relate to Superior Residences are paragraphs 147-150. In those paragraphs, Chase alleged that Superior Residences engaged in a referral scheme with Defendant, LifePath, in exchange for diapers and chux. However, in Count III (Conspiracy to Commit Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 4 of 19 PageID 2639 5 Violations of the Act in Violation of 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(a)(C) and Florida Statutes §68.082(2)(c)), Chase failed to specifically allege how the acts complained of in paragraphs 147-150 violated the stated statutes. Moreover, based on the shotgun pleading style of the Fourth Amended Complaint, it is impossible to determine whether Chase intended to allege that Superior Residences conspired, only, with LifePath or whether Chase intended to allege that Superior Residences and LifePath were engaged in a purported conspiracy scheme with all of the named Defendants. II. Relator Failed To State A Cause Of Action Under the False Claims Act. 11. The submission of a false claim is the “sine qua non” of a False Claims Act (hereinafter “FCA”) violation. U.S. ex rel. Clausen v. Lab Corp. of Am., 290 F.3d 1301, 1311 (11th Circ. 2002). The “failure to allege the actual submission of a specific false claim is fatal.” Hopper v. Solvay Pharm, Inc., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1354 (M.D. Fla. 2008). Chase does not allege the submission of a false claim in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Chase alleged that the Defendants “knowingly presented or caused to be presented false and fraudulent Medicaid and Medicare claims for payment or approval…” and “knowingly made, used, or caused to be made or used false records or statements material to false or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the United States and State of Florida.” See Fourth Amended Complaint, paragraphs 174 and 179. Chase is not permitted “to describe a private scheme in detail but then to allege simply and without any stated reasons for his belief that Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 5 of 19 PageID 2640 6 claims requesting illegal payments must have been submitted, were likely submitted or should have been submitted to the Government.” Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1311. A. Count I- Relator Failed to Allege the Submission of a False Claim 12. Due to the shotgun pleading style of the Fourth Amended Complaint, it is impossible to tell which, if any, of the counts are directed at Superior Residences. However, for the purposes of this motion, it will be assumed that counts I-III have been asserted against Superior Residences. 13. In Count I, the Chase alleged a cause of action pursuant to §3729(a)(1)(A) of the FCA and §68.082(2)(a) of the FFCA 1 . “To establish a cause of action under the False Claims Act, a relator must prove three elements: (1) a false or fraudulent claim; (2) which was presented, or caused to be presented, by the defendant to the United States for payment or approval; (3) with the knowledge that the claim was false. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a).” U.S. ex. rel Walker v. R&F Properties of Lake County, Inc., 433 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2005). 14. “Under Rule 9(b), ‘the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). To state a claim under the False Claims Act with particularity, the complaint must allege ‘“Facts as to time, place and substance of the defendant’s alleged fraud,” [and] “the details of the defendants’ allegedly fraudulent acts, when they occurred, and who engaged in them.” ’ Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1310 (quoting Copper v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 19 F.3d 652, 567- 68 (11th Cir. 1994)). Failure to satisfy Rule 9(b) is a ground for dismissal of a 1 The FFCA is modeled after the FCA and, accordingly, claims under the FFCA must satisfy the same Rule 9(b) pleading requirements. See, Barys v. Vitas Healthcare Corp., 298 Fed. Appx. 893, 894 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 6 of 19 PageID 2641 7 complaint.” Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1012 (11th Cir. 2005). In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Chase failed to plead with particularity the facts as to time, place and substance of Superior Residence’s alleged fraud. Moreover, nowhere in the Fourth Amended Complaint did Chase allege that Superior Residences submitted a false claim to any governmental agency or that Superior Residences caused a false claim to be submitted to any governmental agency. Superior Residences is entitled to know, from the outset of this litigation, what false claim it allegedly submitted or caused to be submitted. 15. The Eleventh Circuit in Corsello, supra, explained that, “[a]lthough we construe all facts in favor of the plaintiff when reviewing a motion to dismiss, we decline to make inferences about the submission of fraudulent claims because such an assumption would ‘strip[] all meaning from Rule 9(b)’s requirements of specificity.’ Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1312 n.21” Corsello at 1013. Accordingly, it would be improper for this Honorable Court to simply infer that a false claim was submitted with regard to Superior Residences. 16. The only paragraphs in the Fourth Amended Complaint that, specifically, relate to Superior Residences are paragraphs 147-150. Those paragraphs contain conclusory allegations that Superior Residences engaged in an improper kickback scheme with Life Path. There was no allegation of a specific fraudulent claim. “Underlying improper practices alone are insufficient to state a claim under the False Claims Act absent allegations that a specific fraudulent claim was in fact submitted to the government. Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1311. In short, Corsello provided the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of improper practices, but he failed to allege the Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 7 of 19 PageID 2642 8 ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of fraudulent submissions to the government.” Corsello at 1014. 17. Moreover, the allegations in paragraphs 173-177 are conclusory statements. Conclusory statements are insufficient to prove that a false claim has been submitted. See, Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1312 (the relator failed to “provide any factual basis for his conclusory statement tacked on to each allegation that bills were submitted to the Government as a result of these schemes.”). 18. In Clausen, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a complaint alleging fraudulent billing because the relator failed to identify a single claim that was actually submitted pursuant to the purportedly fraudulent schemes in the complaint. The Court noted that if “Rule 9(b) is to be adhered to, some indicia of reliability must be given in the complaint to support the allegation of an actual false claim for payment being made to the Government.” Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1311 (emphasis in original). A plaintiff must set forth an “allegation, stated with particularity, of a false claim actually being submitted to the Government” to comply with the requirements of Rule 9(b). Id. at 1312. In analyzing the deficiencies in the relator’s amended complaint, the Clausen Court explained: Clausen’s allegations have fallen short. And at no stage of this case did they reach their mark. For example, in Clausen’s First Amended Complaint, he described the various schemes LapCorp allegedly implemented to generate unneeded or duplicative medical tests on unsuspecting LTCF patients. He even provided three LTCFs’ patient lists for a few years and a handful of patients’ lab results and standing orders to illustrate the tests LabCorp had performed. This set the stage for the consummation of this alleged nefarious plot to recover unjustified amounts of taxpayer money. But, as to the plot’s execution, Clausen merely offers conclusory statements, and does not adequately allege when-or even if- the schemes were brought to fruition. Here merely alleged that “there practices resulted in the Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 8 of 19 PageID 2643 9 submission of false claims for payment to the United States.” No amounts of charges were identified. No actual dates were alleged. No policies about billing or even second-hand information about billing practices were described, other than to state that electronic HCFA Form 1500s with medical test codes were used. No copy of a single bill or payment was provided. 19. Here, Chase failed to provide any information about the amounts that were allegedly fraudulently charged, dates when the alleged charges occurred or a copy of a bill or payment. B. Count II- Relator Failed to Identify Specific False Statements or Records That Were Knowingly Made or Caused to be Made. 20. In Count II, Chase alleged a cause of action pursuant to §3729(a)(1)(B) of the FCA and §68.082(2)(b) of the FFCA. To state a cause of action under §3729(a)(1)(B) of the FCA and §68.082(2)(b) of the FFCA Chase must allege: (1) a false statement or record; (2) that was material to a false or fraudulent claim; and (3) the defendant knew it was false. See 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(1)(B); U.S. ex rel. Mastej v. Health Mgmt. Associates, Inc., 591 Fed. App. 693, 710 (11th Cir. 2014). Chase failed to allege the aforementioned elements with particularity. 21. Chase must allege with particularity that Superior Residences’ “false statements or records ultimately led the government to pay amounts it did not owe.” Hopper v. Solvay Pharm, Inc., supra, at 1329. 22. The Fourth Amended Complaint failed to provide sufficient detail to support Chase’s claim because it failed to allege any particular facts regarding (1) what false statements or records were made, (2) when they were made, (3) who precisely made them and (4) the content of the statements or records. There are no allegations regarding specific alleged false statements or records made by Superior Residences. Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 9 of 19 PageID 2644 10 Moreover, liability for false statements or records can only lie where a false claim is submitted. As previously discussed, Chase did not adequately plead that false claims were, in fact, submitted to the government. C. Relator Failed to Allege and Agreement Between the Alleged Conspirators 23. In Count III, Chase alleged a cause of action pursuant to §3729(a)(1)(C) of the FCA and §68.082(2)(c) of the FFCA. To state a cause of action under §3729(a)(1)(C) of the FCA and §68.082(2)(c) of the FFCA, Chase must plead three elements: “(1) that the defendant conspired with one or more persons to get a false or fraudulent claim paid by the United States: (2) that one or more the conspirators performed any act to effect the object of the conspiracy; and (3) that the United States suffered damage as a result of the fraudulent claim.” Corsello, 428 F.3d at 1014. Chase failed to allege the necessary elements for the cause of action with particularity as required by Rule 9(b). “The essence of a conspiracy under the Act is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a fraud.” See, U.S. ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 721 F.Supp. 1247, 1259 (S.D. Fla. 1989). Chase did not adequately plead an agreement between any or all of the Defendants who participated in the purported conspiracy. D. Relator Cannot Provide Sufficient Indicia of Reliability. 24. Chase alleged “direct and independent knowledge” of the allegations set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint. See Fourth Amended Complaint at paragraph 12. Chase did not provide sufficient indicia of reliability to support the allegations set forth in the operative Complaint. A relator must provide “some indicia of reliability…to support the allegation of an actual false claim for payment being made to the Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 10 of 19 PageID 2645 11 government.” Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1311. “[I]t is not enough for a qui tam Relator to spell out in detail the fraudulent schemes allegedly employed by a defendant. Nor is it sufficient to set out in detail the process by which false claims could be produced. In addition to such allegations, a qui tam Relator must identify the claims that were actually submitted and must set forth facts sufficient to show that the conduct alleged actually resulted in the submission of false claims.” U,S, ex rel Nichols v. Omni H.C., Inc., 2008 WL 906426, at *5 (M.D. Ga. 2008). 25. Chase did not allege that she was an employee or insider at Superior Residences. Furthermore, Chase did not allege that she worked in the billing department at LifePath such that she would have sufficient information regarding claims that were submitted for payment. Accordingly, Chase failed to allege sufficient indicia of reliability of the allegations set forth in the operative Complaint. III. All or Some of Relator’s Claims are Barred By the Statute of Limitations 26. The applicable statute of limitations bars all of Chase’s claims against Superior Residences based on claims submitted to the government before March 24, 2010. The FCA imposes a six year statute of limitation, which generally begins to run upon the presentation of the alleged false claim. See 31 U.S.C. §3731(b)(1) (“[An action] may not be brought [] more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed.”); United States v. Rivera, 55 F.3d 703, 706-08 (1st Cir. 1995) (dismissing FCA action for claims submitted for payment prior to six years before the date that the complaint was filed); United States v. Entin, 750 F. Supp. 512, 517 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (“[T]he statute of limitation began to run once a claim for Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 11 of 19 PageID 2646 12 payment was submitted to the United States.”) 2 Chase first named Superior Residences as a defendant in her Complaint on March 24, 2010. Accordingly, any claims against Superior Residences alleging liability for claims submitted to the government before March 24, 2010 must, therefore, be dismissed. Chase cannot avoid this result by asserting that her claims against Superior Residences relate back to her prior complaints, which did not include Superior Residences as a defendant. The addition of a new defendant relates back to a prior pleading only if the amending party can show that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the claim arises out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence”; (2) the party to be added received notice within the 90-day period for serving the complaint under Rule 4(m); and (3) the party to be added “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c); Lindley v. City of Birmingham, 515 F. App’x 813, 815 (11th Cir. 2013); Al-Dahir v. FBU, 454 F.App’x 238, 242 (5th Cir. 2011) (relator bears the burden of establishing relation back). 27. Chase cannot establish any of the aforementioned elements. The obstacles to meeting the second and third conditions are particularly obvious. Superior Residences did not receive notice of any of Chase’s prior complaints. Superior Residences was legally prohibited from receiving notice of them by virtue of the FCA’s seal provisions and 2 Chase may not invoke the three-year tolling provision found in 31 U.S.C. §3731(b)(2). As numerous courts have held, section 3731(b)(2) does not apply to qui tam actions brought by private relators in which the Government has not intervened. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Sanders v. N. Am. Bus. Indus., 546 F.3d 288, 293-96 (4th Cir. 2008); United States ex rel Sikkenga v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield of Utah, 472 F.3d 702, 725-26 (10th Cir. 2006); United States ex rel. Erskine v. Baker, 213 F.3d 638 (5th Cir 2000); United States ex rel. Harris v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 905 F. Supp.2d 1343, 1356-57 (N.D. Ga. 2012). Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 12 of 19 PageID 2647 13 the court’s subsequent extensions. See 31 U.S.C. §3730(b)(2). Moreover, Superior Residences did not know that it was not named solely because of a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity,” because (i) Superior Residences did not know about the case at all, and (ii) there was no mistake of identity. 28. Accordingly, the applicable statute of limitations bars any claims occurring prior to March 24, 2010. IV. Relator Should not be Granted Leave to Amend 29. Chase should not be granted leave to amend her allegations against Superior Residences. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that leave to amend “should [be] freely give[n]…when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend need not be given where there is “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party” or where amendment would be futile. Pioneer Metals, Inc. v. Univar USA, Inc., 168 F. App’x 335,336-37 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 30. Chase has already had the opportunity to adequately plead these allegations five times, and she (with the assistance of the United States government) has investigated the potential support for her allegations over six years. See Docket Entry 2 (permission to file Complaint dated May 4, 2010); Docket Entry 56 (notice of non- intervention by the United States and the State of Florida). After all of this, Chase added Superior Residences as a defendant, but her allegations as to Superior Residences are woefully lacking in the requisite detail. This history, along with the fact that Chase was not a Superior Residences employee or insider, provide ample Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 13 of 19 PageID 2648 14 basis for this Honorable Court to conclude that she would not be able to add the missing, but required information if given a sixth bite at the apple. Amendment would be futile and should be denied. 31. Accordingly, Chase has failed to state a cause of action and, therefore, the Fourth Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Superior Residences, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter order dismissing the Complaint, and for any other relief this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 14 of 19 PageID 2649 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of August, 2016, the foregoing Defendant’s, Superior Residences, Inc., Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended False Claims Act Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law was filed by ECF and served via e-mail transmission, to all parties on the attached Service List. /s/ Audra M. Bryant . RICHARD B. BUSH, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0294152 AUDRA M. BRYANT, Esq. Florida Bar No. 010303 rbb@bushlawgroup.com amb@bushlawgroup.com mkp@bushlawgroup.com Bush & Augspurger, P.A. 3375-C Capital Circle NE, Ste. 200 Tallahassee, FL 32308-3778 (850) 386-7666 - Telephone (850) 386-1376 - Facsimile LISA J. AUGSPURGER, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 892459 BUSH & AUGSPURGER, P.A. 411 E. Jackson Street Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 422-5319 (407) 849-1821- FAX lja@bushlawgroup.com cml@bushlawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant, Superior Residences, Inc. Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 15 of 19 PageID 2650 16 SERVICE LIST A. Brian Albritton, Esq., Phelps Dunbar, LLP 100 S. Ashley Dr., Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602-5311 brian.albritton@phelps.com Attorneys for Defendant, Diana Yates Nathan Michael Berman, Esq. Jack E. Fernandez, Jr., Esq. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5838 nberman@zuckerman.com jfernandez@zuckerman.com Attorneys for Defendant, M. D. Ronald Schonwetter Cathleen Bell Bremmer, Esq. Blaise Nolan Gamba, Esq. Erin J. Hoyle, Esq. Adam P. Schwartz, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd, Suite 1000 PO Box 3239 Tampa, FL 33601-3239 cbell@cfjblaw.com bgamba@cfjblaw.com ehoyle@cfjblaw.com aschwartz@cfjblaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, Chapters Health System, Inc.,, Chapters Health, Inc., Good Shepherd Hospice, Inc. and Life Path Hospice, Inc. Gabriel L. Imperato, Esq. Broad and Cassel 1 Financial Plaza, Suite 2700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394-0002 gimperato@broadandcassel.com Attorneys for Defendant, Chapters Health System, Inc.,, Chapters Health, Inc., Good Shepherd Hospice, Inc. and Life Path Hospice, Inc. Colleen A. Conry, Esq. David E. Rhinesmith, Esq. Ropes & Gray, LLP 700 Twelfth St., N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Colleen.conry@ropesgray.com David.rhinesmith@ropesgray.com Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 16 of 19 PageID 2651 17 Attorneys for Defendant, JSA Healthcare Corporation Andrew J. O’Connor, Esq. Brien T. O’Connor, Esq Ropes & Gray, LLP 800 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02199-3600 Andrew.oconnor@ropesgray.com Brien.o’connor@ropesgray.com Attorneys for Defendant, JSA Healthcare Corporation Mark P. Rankin, Esq. Shutts & Bowen, LLP 4301 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607-5716 mrankin@shutts.com Attorneys for Defendant, JSA Healthcare Corporation Tillman James Finley, Esq. Daniel Marino, Esq Elyse Anne MacNamara, Esq. Marino Finley PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 700W Washington, DC 20005 tfinley@marinofinley.com dmarino@marinofinley.com emacnamara@marinofinley.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nancy Chase Natalie Khawam, Esq. Whistleblower Law Firm, P.L. 400 N. Tampa St., Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33602-4700 nataliek@813whistle.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nancy Chase Mark Kiser, Esq. John Sebastian Vento, Esq. Trenam Kemker 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602-5150 mkiser@trenam.com jsvento@trenam.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nancy Chase Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 17 of 19 PageID 2652 18 Lacy R. Harwell, Jr., Esq. US Attorney’s Office - FLM 400 N. Tampa St., Suite 3200 Tampa, FL 33602 Randy.harwell@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America Margaret Knaust Kramer, Esq. Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns, LLP 333 3 rd Avenue North, Suite 200 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 maggiek@jpfirm.com Attorneys for Mobile Physician Services, P.A. and M.D. Richard M. Wacksman Darryl R. Richards, Esq. Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 403 E Madison St., Suite 400 PO Box 1100 Tampa, FL 33601-1100 darrylr@jpfirm.com Attorneys for Mobile Physician Services, P.A. and M.D. Richard M. Wacksman Philip Matthew Luka, Esq. Trombley & Hanes, P.A. 707 N. Franklin St - 10 th Floor PO Box 3356 Tampa, FL 33601-3356 mluka@trombleyhaneslaw.com Attorneys for Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc. Enu A. Mainigi, Esq. Jennifer G. Wicht, Esq. Williams & Connolly, LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 emainigi@wc.com jwicht@wc.com Attorneys for Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc. Paul M. Sisco, Esq. Jung & Sisco, P.A. 101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3920 Tampa, FL 33602 Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 18 of 19 PageID 2653 19 psisco@jungandsisco.com Attorneys for M.D. Sayed Hussain Case 8:10-cv-01061-JSM-TGW Document 205 Filed 08/31/16 Page 19 of 19 PageID 2654
