United States v. Rite Aid Corp.

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [73]

In May 2011, Relator Azam Rahimi ("Rahimi" or "Relator") filed his qui tam complaint against Defendant Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite Aid") alleging violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA") and analogous state laws. In June of 2011, the United States sought an extension to consider whether to intervene. ECF 3 (under seal). The Court granted the motion and administratively closed the case. In April 2013, the Court reopened the [*2]  case only to allow Rahimi to file an amended complaint. ECF 13. Finally, in August 2016—after more than five years of extensions sought by the Government—Rahimi filed a motion to reopen the case and set a deadline for government intervention. ECF 29. The Court conducted a sealed hearing on the motion and permitted Relator to file a second amended complaint ("SAC").

On November 18, 2016, Rahimi filed his second amended complaint. ECF 44. The Court reopened the case and set a deadline for the Government to notify the Court of its intention to intervene. ECF 45 (under seal). The United States and the several states declined to intervene. ECF 46, 47. Rahimi served Rite Aid. ECF 50. Rite Aid requested that discovery be stayed, ECF 54, and responded to the SAC with a motion to dismiss, ECF 55. The Court granted Rite Aid's motion to stay, ECF 68, and denied without prejudice Rite Aid's motion to dismiss, ECF 70.

On May 11, 2018, Relator filed his third amended complaint ("TAC"). ECF 71. Rite Aid again filed a motion to dismiss. ECF 73. The Court reviewed the briefs and finds that a hearing is unnecessary. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). For the reasons below, the Court will deny Rite Aid's motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.