Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 6 FILED

2011 Mar-10 PM 02:05

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

ex rel. CARL CRAWLEY, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:09-CV-01810-RDP
)
RURAL/METRO CORPORATION, )
RURAL/METRO OF CENTRAL )
ALABAMA, INC., )
)
Defendants. )

MOTION TO PARTIALLY INTERVENE

The United States of America, through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to

31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3) and Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

respectfully requests that the Court permit the United States to partially intervene

in this qui tam action. In support of its Motion to Partially Intervene, the United

States shows as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. On September 10, 2009, Carl Crawley (the “Relator”) filed his

Complaint under the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

2. The Complaint alleges that Rural/Metro Corporation and Rural/Metro

of Central Alabama, Inc. (together, the “Defendants”) caused false claims to be

 Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 2 of 6

submitted to the United States for ambulance services provided to certain Medicare

and Medicaid beneficiaries.

3. On October 7, 2010, the United States filed a motion seeking to

extend the deadline under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 for the United States to make its

decision regarding whether or not to intervene in this action (Doc. #10).

4. By order dated October 8, 2010 (Doc. #11), this Court denied the

government’s motion and unsealed this matter.

5. By order dated February 24, 2011 (Doc. # 15), this Court ordered the

United States to notify the Court by March 10, 2011 of the government’s intention

to intervene in this matter or notify the Court that the United States declines to do

so.

RELIEF REQUESTED

6. The United States seeks to partially intervene for good cause in this

qui tam action. As described herein, the United States submits that good cause

exists because the United States has recently obtained information that was not

previously available. The government’s request to intervene is limited to only the

allegations in the Complaint which relate to the Defendants’ submission of claims

for ambulance transportation services provided to Medicare and Medicaid

beneficiaries who were being transported for dialysis services. The Relator has

2
 Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 3 of 6

informed counsel for the United States that he does not oppose this motion.

A. Intervention For “Good Cause” Under the False Claims Act is

Permitted and Warranted Based on Newly Obtained Information.

7. The FCA provides that even when the United States declines to

intervene at the outset of a qui tam action, the Court may “permit the government

to intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3).

In enacting Section 3730(c)(3), Congress recognized that the “limited opportunity

for Government involvement [during the investigation period] could in some cases

work to the detriment of the government's interests.” S. Rep. No. 345, 99th Cong.,

2d Sess. at p. 26-27 (reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at pp. 5266, 5291-92); see

also U.S. ex rel. Stevens v. State of Vt. Agency of Natural Resources, 162 F.3d 195,

200 (1998) (“Even if the government elects not to intervene at the outset, it may

intervene upon a showing of good cause at any time thereafter”).

8. Two reported decisions that address “good cause” intervention under

the FCA hold that good cause exists where the government discovers new evidence

subsequent to its original decision to decline. See United States ex rel. Stone v.

Rockwell Int'l Corp., 950 F. Supp. 1046 (D. Colo. 1996); United States ex rel. Hall

v. Schwartzman, 887 F. Supp. 60 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).

9. In Rockwell, the United States sought permission to intervene five

years after the initial unsealing of the complaint and three years after the United

3
 Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 4 of 6

States filed its declination notice based on information the government discovered

in a related case being litigated before the United States Court of Federal Claims,

as well as additional information provided by relator. See Rockwell, 950 F. Supp. at

1049. In granting the government’s motion,

10. In Schwartzman, the district court found that the “subsequent

discovery of new and significant evidence which has altered its view of the

magnitude of the alleged fraud” constituted good cause to intervene.

Schwartzman, 887 F. Supp. at 62.

11. As in Rockwell and Schwartzman, the United States has obtained

additional information in this matter since the Court denied the government’s

motion to extend the intervention deadline in October 2010.1

B. The Relator and the Defendants Will Not Be Unduly Prejudiced if the
Government is Permitted to Partially Intervene.

12. Neither the Relator nor the Defendants will be unduly prejudiced by

partial intervention by the United States.

13. The docket in this matter reflects that the procedural posture of this

case is essentially the same today as it was when the Court entered its October 8,

2010 order. As of today, the Defendants have not answered the Complaint and the

United States is unaware of any substantive discussions directly between the

1
The United States has not included in this motion the information that the government has
obtained since October 2010. If necessary, the United States is prepared, at the Court’s request,
to set forth in camera, this newly-discovered information.
4
 Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 5 of 6

Relator and the Defendants which would be disrupted or harmed by the

government’s intervention.

14. In fact, as this Court is aware, even after the Court entered the

October 8, 2010 order, the United States did not stop investigating the matter. Over

the last few months, counsel for the United States and the Defendants have

continued to exchange information and documents related to the allegations in the

Complaint.

C. The United States Requests that it be Permitted Until March 31, 2011 to
File a Complaint in Intervention.

15. If the United States’ motion is granted, because the government is

intervening in some but not all of the allegations in the Complaint, the United

States intends to file a complaint-in-intervention which complies with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and sets forth the basis for its claims against the

Defendants.

16. Accordingly, if this Court grants the United States’ motion to

partially intervene, and consistent with the Court’s February 24, 2011 Order, the

United States seeks leave until March 31, 2011 to file a complaint-in-intervention.

CONCLUSION

17. For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests

that this Court issue an Order (1) allowing the United States to partially intervene

5
 Case 2:09-cv-01810-RDP Document 16 Filed 03/10/11 Page 6 of 6

for good cause in this action and (2) permitting the United States until March 31,

2011 to file its complaint in intervention.

Respectfully submitted this the 10th day of March, 2011.

JOYCE WHITE VANCE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Lloyd C. Peeples

LLOYD C. PEEPLES, III
Assistant United States Attorney
1801 4th Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 244-2116

Counsel for United States