Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Mercy Regional Health Systems

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 11, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MERCY REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, LTD.,D/B/A MERCY REGIONAL EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES AND CLAYTON W. HOBBS, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on consideration of the Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, and Damages under the False Claims Act by the United States. Having considered the matter and being duly advised in the premises, the Court now finds that an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order cannot be issued at this time, pursuant to the requirements of FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 65(b).

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 65(b) authorizes the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) without notice to the adverse party in certain limited circumstances. An ex parte TRO may only be granted under Rule 65(b)(1) if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

Without reaching the United States's arguments as to whether a TRO should be granted under Rule 65(b)(1)(A), the Court notes that the movant's attorney has not certified in writing any efforts made to give notice or reasons why notice to the opposing party should not be required as is necessary under Rule 65(b)(1)(B). Though the United States mentions this requirement in its verified complaint (Doc. 2, ¶ 42), no such certification has been filed.

Therefore, the Court DENIES the United States's request for an ex parte TRO at this time. However, if the attorney for the United States submits a supplement in compliance with Rule 65(b)(1)(B), the Court will consider the supplement as a motion to reconsider.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge

20080311

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.