DOJ Challenges Illinois Federal Judge’s Denial of Dismissal Motion

The Department of Justice contends that Judge Staci Yandle in the Southern District of Illinois made several mistakes by refusing to end a False Claims Act case, U.S. ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, Inc. et al., 3:17-cv-00765 (S.D. Ill.). The lawsuit—one of many filed by the same corporate whistleblower—alleges that several defendants made illegal kickbacks when they deployed “nurse educators” who were “in reality acting as undercover sales reps” to push certain drugs. The DOJ moved to dismiss the lawsuits earlier this year, asserting that dismissal was proper because the company behind them wasted over 1,500 hours of the government’s time and the cases lacked sufficient merit to justify the additional resources that the government would need to devote to them. Judge Yandle’s ruling was the second in this group of cases that has considered the DOJ’s request for dismissal of the whistleblower's claims. Unlike the decision of Judge Savage (E.D. Pa.), however, Yandle concluded that the government’s reason for seeking dismissal wasn’t sufficient to end the suit, criticizing the government for not submitting a cost-benefit analysis to support its arguments, and accusing the government of harboring animus toward the relator. The DOJ’s motion for reconsideration argues that it spent “considerable time” investigating the claims, and that its dismissal request arose not out of animus, but instead its evaluation of the factual merits of the claims. The DOJ contends that Yandle also erred by intruding into the function of the executive branch by substituting her views on the basis for dismissal for those of the government. The relator has not yet filed a response.

May 3, 2019