United States v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-CV-022-Z |
| Citation | 601 F.Supp.3d 97 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC., et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
J. Scott Hogan, US Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, Heather Gebelin Hacker, Hacker Stephens LLP, Austin, TX, Jamie Yavelberg, US Attorney's Office - Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff United States of America.
Andrew Bowman Stephens, Heather Gebelin Hacker, Hacker Stephens LLP, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff Alex Doe.
Heather Gebelin Hacker, Hacker Stephens LLP, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff The State of Louisiana.
Leah Godesky, Pro Hac Vice, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher Mohr Odell, Arnold & Porter LLP, Houston, TX, Danny S. Ashby, Justin Roel Chapa, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Dallas, TX, Ryan Patrick Brown, Law Office of Blackburn & Brown, LLP, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc.
Christopher Mohr Odell, Arnold & Porter LLP, Houston, TX, Christian Sheehan, Pro Hac Vice, Craig D. Margolis, Pro Hac Vice, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, Ryan Patrick Brown, Law Office of Blackburn & Brown, LLP, Amarillo, TX, Tirzah Lollar, Pro Hac Vice, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washinton, DC, for Defendants Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Inc, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Inc, Planned Parenthood South Texas Inc, Planned Parenthood Cameron County Inc, Planned Parenthood San Antonio Inc.
Before the Court are Defendants’1 Combined Motions to Dismiss Relator's Complaint (ECF No. 48) and Combined Motion to Dismiss the State of Texas's Complaint in Intervention (ECF No. 50) (collectively "Motions"). Having considered the Motions and relevant law, the Court finds the Motions should be and are hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court GRANTS dismissal only of Relator's federal conspiracy to commit health-care fraud claim and DENIES dismissal of Relator's and Texas's remaining claims.
From 2013 to 2015, Relator Alex Doe ("Relator") conducted an undercover journalistic investigation to determine whether Planned Parenthood and its affiliates were providing fetal tissue collected from abortions to researchers and tissue procurement companies. ECF No. 2 at 23, ¶¶ 64–65. Relator's investigation revealed Planned Parenthood officials who were willing to (1) obtain fetal tissue in exchange for money and/or (2) modify abortion procedures to obtain more intact tissue specimens — in violation of federal and state laws. Id. at 23–28, ¶¶ 66–78. In June 2015, Relator provided video footage of those meetings with Planned Parenthood officials to the Attorney General of Texas. Id. at 28–29, ¶ 79. The information Relator uncovered prompted the United States House of Representatives, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and State of Texas to investigate Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. Id. at 29, ¶ 80. In July 2015, Relator released footage of the Planned Parenthood meetings to the public via YouTube. Id. at 29, ¶ 81.
Based in part on the video evidence and information Relator provided, the States of Louisiana and Texas terminated various Planned Parenthood affiliates from their respective state Medicaid programs. On September 15, 2015, Louisiana notified Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. ("PPGC") that it would be excluded from the State's Medicaid program. Louisiana did so because the State determined PPGC was not a qualified Medicaid provider. Id. at 29, ¶ 82; see also Id. , Ex. A. PPGC did not pursue a challenge of the termination by a state administrative proceeding. The termination became final on October 15, 2015. Id. at 29, ¶ 83. That same day, the Office of the Inspector General of Texas ("OIG") sent initial notices of termination from the Texas Medicaid program to Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, Inc. ("PPGT"), Planned Parenthood of South Texas, Inc. ("PPST"), and PPGC. Id. , Ex. B. PPGT, PPST, and PPGC did not challenge the initial determinations by a state administrative proceeding. Id. at 30, ¶ 85. On December 20, 2016, OIG sent final notices of termination to the three affiliates. Id. , Ex. C. The three entities did not contest the terminations by a state administrative proceeding. Id. The terminations became final on January 19, 2017. Id. at 31, ¶ 92.
In response, Planned Parenthood entities filed lawsuits in Texas and Louisiana federal courts challenging Texas's and Louisiana's termination decisions. Id. at 5, ¶ 7. Those courts issued preliminary injunctions in the Planned Parenthood entities’ favor. Id. Under the preliminary injunctions, Planned Parenthood continued to submit payment claims for Medicaid services Id. at 5, ¶ 8. The injunctions required Texas and Louisiana to continue to make such payments. Id. On January 17, 2019, a Fifth Circuit panel vacated the preliminary injunction in the Texas case. Id. at 6, ¶ 9. On November 23, 2020, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc affirmed vacating of the preliminary injunction in the Texas case, reversed the Louisiana case, and affirmed Texas's determination that Planned Parenthood was not a qualified provider. Id. at 6, ¶ 10.
On February 5, 2021, Relator filed the instant qui tam action against Defendants.
Relator seeks civil penalties and treble damages under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act ("TMFPA"), and the Louisiana Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law ("LMAPIL") on behalf of the United States, Texas, and Louisiana. See generally id. On November 1, 2021, Texas notified the Court of its election to intervene in the suit. See generally ECF No. 16. On November 3, 2021, the United States declined to intervene. See generally ECF No. 18. Louisiana has neither elected nor declined to intervene. The Court notes that Louisiana may "intervene and proceed with the qui tam action in the district court at any time during the qui tam action proceedings." LA. REV. STAT. § 46:439.1(F).
On January 6, 2022, Texas filed its Complaint in Intervention, and Relator requested that the United States District Clerk issue summons. See ECF Nos. 22, 25. On January 12, 2022, the Court ordered the case unsealed, and the Clerk issued summons to Defendants. ECF Nos. 27, 28, 30. Defendants subsequently filed the motions before the Court today.
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Relator's Complaint — or parts of it — for five reasons: First, Relator fails to plausibly plead the elements of an FCA violation in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 49 at 26. Second, Relator fails to plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b). Id. at 39. Third, the so-called "public-disclosure bar" prohibits Relator's FCA claims. Id. at 19; see also 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (detailing public-disclosure bar). Fourth, Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), state public-disclosure bars, and Texas's "government-action bar" preclude Relator's state-law claims. ECF No. 49 at 44; see also TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 36.113(a). Fifth, the Court should dismiss Relator's federal conspiracy to commit health-care fraud claim because "[a] private party has no right to enforce federal criminal statutes." Balawajder v. Jacobs , No. 99-211-50, 2000 WL 960065, at *1, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 40044, at *1 (5th Cir. June 14, 2000) (per curiam); see also Bass Angler Sportsman Soc'y v. U.S. Steel Corp. , 324 F. Supp. 412, 415 (D. Ala. 1971), aff'd , 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971) ; ECF No. 49 at 45.
Defendants also ask the Court to dismiss Texas's Complaint for four reasons: First, Defendants argue the State is judicially estopped from pursuing its claims. ECF No. 51 at 18. Second, Texas fails to plead elements of a "reverse" TMFPA violation under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 21. Third, Texas fails to plead fraud with particularity — as required by Rule 9(b) — in its claim against Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. ("PPFA") Id. at 27. Fourth, the Court lacks original subject-matter jurisdiction and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Id. at 29.
A court may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig. , 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."
Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal marks omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." In re Katrina , 495 F.3d at 205 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). "The ‘court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ " Id. ).
A court should first "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id. When "well-pleaded factual allegations" exist, "a court should assume their veracity and then...
To continue reading
Request your trial