The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANTS' RULE 59(e) MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
Now before the Court are motions by both Plaintiff and Defendants to alter or amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e). The motions are timely filed and this Court has jurisdiction. The motions are granted as follows.
The Government moves to amend the Judgment to correct and reduce the amount of damages, reducing the amount of the Judgment from $23,776,332 to $15,657,585. Defendants do not oppose the reduction. Therefore, the Motion is Granted. The Damages are reduced as follows:
YearFalse Claim SubmittedOriginal DamagesAmended Damages
1997Interest Claimed But Never Paid$2,550,722$1,494,753
Unrelated Bankruptcy Legal Fees$860,144$421,470
Interest Claimed But Never Paid$2,761,803$1,807,880
1998Unrelated Bankruptcy Legal Fees$112,303$112,303
Management Fees to NCFE$180,000$189,847
Non-Existent Lease Expense$414,618$414,618
Inflated Square Footage Effect on Reimbursement$279,899$279,899
1999Unrelated Bankruptcy Legal Fees$53,535$53,535
Management Fees to NCFE$240,000$118,798
Inflated Square Footage Effect on Reimbursement$135,521$135,521
Program Costs (Interest Claimed But Never Paid)$336,899$190,571
The total single damages is reduced from $7,925,444 to $5,219,195. At the same time, the total trebled damages is reduced from $23,776,332 to $15,657,585. The $31,000 of civil penalties remains unchanged.
Defendants also move to alter or amend seeking amended findings and challenging the damages as an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment and a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The motion is granted insofar as the Judgment will be altered to make explicit what was implicit previously: the false claims of the 1997, 1998, and 1999 Medicare Cost Reports for California Psychiatric Management Services ("CPMS") doing business as Bayview Hospital & Mental Health Systems ("Bayview") actually damaged the Government and are actionable both as affirmative false claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), §3729(a)(2) or §3729(a)(3), and as reverse false claims under § 3729(a)(7) adopting the reasoning of United States, ex rel. A Homecare, Inc. v. Medshares Management Group, Inc., 400 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 797 (2005).
The motion is granted insofar as the Court now considers whether the fines and trebled damages imposed here violate either the Eighth Amendment or the Due Process Clause. The Court finds they do not.
The trebled damages awarded do not violate the Eighth Amendment. In United States v. Mackby, 261 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Mackby I"), which the Defendants rely on*fn1 , the Ninth Circuit concluded that the False Claims Act treble damages provision had a punitive element and was, therefore, subject to an Excessive Fines analysis under the Eighth Amendment. Two years later, the Supreme Court determined that the treble damages provision of the False Claims Act also has "a compensatory side, serving remedial purposes in addition to punitive objectives." Cook County, Illinois v. United States, 538 U.S. 119, 130 (2003). In fact, Cook County suggests that in a False Claims Act case much of the trebled damages award serves a compensatory purpose. The Supreme Court observes that there is "no question that some liability beyond the amount of the fraud is usually necessary to compensate the Government completely for the costs, delays, and inconveniences occasioned by fraudulent claims." Id. Earlier, in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 445 (1989), the Supreme Court found that the injury from the presentment of a false claim is "not merely the amount of the fraud itself, but also ancillary costs, such as the costs of detection and investigation, that routinely attend the Government's efforts to root out deceptive practices directed at the public purse." Moreover, the Cook County decision notes that trebled damages help compensate the Government in the absence of a separate provision for consequential damages and prejudgment interest.*fn2 Id. at 131 and n.9 ("The treble damages provision was, in a way, adopted by Congress as a substitute for consequential damages.").
In the Mackby litigation following remand and coming after the Cook County decision, the Ninth Circuit held that treble damages and fines awarded under the False Claims Act in that case did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause where the size of the penalty was "not grossly disproportional to [defendant's] level of culpability and the harm he caused." United States v. ...