Case 1:09-cv-20756-PAS Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2016 Page 1 of 4

UN ITED STA TES DISTR ICT C O U R T
SO UTH ER N DISTR ICT O F FLO R IDA
CASE NO.09-20756-CIV-SElTZ/TURN OFF
UN ITED STA TES O F A M ERICA ,

exrel.CARLOS URQUILLA DIAZ,etal.,
Plaintiffs,

KAPLAN UNIVERSITY,etal.,

Defendants.
/
O R D ER D ENY IN G REN EW ED R UL E 60 M O TIO N

THIS M ATTER isbefore the Courton RelatorJudeGillespie'sRenewed Rule 60M otion

toVacateSummaryJudgmentandtoReopenCase(DE-511j.RelatorGillespie(Gillespie)seeks
reconsideration ofthe Court'sOrderGranting Defendants'M otion forSum m ary Judgm entand

DenyingRelator'sM otion forSummaryJudgment(SummaryJudgmentOrder)(DE-3961.ln

thatOrder,theCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoDefendantson Gillespie'sclaimsarising
underthe False Claim sA ct. Specifically,the Courtfound thatGillespie had failed to establish

scienter,anecessary elem entofhisclaim s.Gillespie appealed thatorder. During the courseof

theappeal,theEleventhCircuittookjudicialnoticeofseveraldocumentslthatwerenot
consideredbythisCourtwhenitnlledonthesummaryjudgmentmotions.Aftermakingthese
docum entspartofthe record on appeal,the Eleventh Circuitaffinned the Sum m aly Judgm ent

Order. Gillespie now seeksreconsideration oftheSumm aryJudgm entOrderbased on the

EleventhCircuittakingjudicialnoticeofthesedocuments,whichGillespiemaintainsclearly

l'
T'he docum entsare filed at17E-442-3,442-4,442-5,and 442-6. A copy ofthe Eleventh

CircuitOrdertakingjudicialnoticeisfiledatDE-442-1.

Case 1:09-cv-20756-PAS Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2016 Page 2 of 4

establish scienter. Gillespie'sM otion m ustbedenied based onthe 1aw ofthecase doctrine and
becausethedocumentsdo notestablish scienterforthenecessary tim eperiod.
Underthe 1aw ofthe casedoctrine,both districtcourtsand appellatecourtsarebound by
priorappellate decisionsin the sam e case. AlphameJ Inc.v.B.Braun M edical,Inc.,367F.3d

1280,1285-86(11thCir.2004).TheEleventh Circuithasinstructed:
liunderthe Slaw ofthecase'doctrine,the findingsoffactand conclusionsoflaw by an
appellatecourtare generally binding in allsubsequentproceedingsin the same casein the
trialcourtoron alaterappeal.''Heathcoatv. Potts,905F.
2d367,370(11thCir.1990)

(internalquotationmarksandeitationomitted).Furthermore,thelaw-of-the-case
doctrinebarsrelitigation ofissuesthatweredecided eitherexplicitly orby necessary

implication.SeeSchiavov.Schiavo,403F.3d 1289,1291(11thCir.2005)Cç-f'
he
glaw-of-the-casejdoctrineoperatestoprecludecourtsfrom revisitingissuesthatwere
decided explicitly orby necessary implication in apriorappeal.'
');Kla)v.AllDefendants,

389F.3d l191,1198(11thCir.2004)(dtlkealizingthatapriordecisionlslaw ofthecase
astom attersdecided explicitlyand bynecessary implication,wefind thatourprior

afinnationofthedistrictcourtconstituteslaw ofthecasehere ....''),cert.denied,544
U.S.1061,125S.Ct.2523,161L.Ed.2d 1l11(2005),
.A.A.Profles,Inc.v.City ofFort
Lauderdales253F.3d 576,582(11thCir.2001)(ûtGenerally,thelaw ofthecasedoctrine
requiresacourtto follow whathasbeen explicitly orby necessary implication decided by

apriorappellatedecision.'');InreJusticeOaksIL L/J,898F.2d 1544,l550n.3(11th
Cir.1990)('dW hilethe1aw ofthecasedoesnotbarlitigationofissueswhichmighthave
been decided butwerenot,itdoesrequirea courtto follow whathasbeen decided

explicitly,aswellasbynecessaryimplication,inanearlierproceeding.'')(internal
quotationmarksandcitationomitted).Thedodrine'scentralpuposesincludebringing
an end to litigation,protecting againsttheagitation ofsettled issues,andassuringthat
low ercourtsobey appellate orders. See United States v.W illiam s,728 F.2d 1402,1406

(11thCir.1984).

ThisThatdrTheOtherGW (fTobacco,Inc.v.CobbCounty GA,439F.3d 1275,1283(11thCir.
2006).Whilethereareexceptionstothedoctrine,includingtheproduction ofnew and
substantiallydifferentevidence,id at1283,theexceptionsdo notapply in consideration of
G illespie's M otion.

Here,Gillespie arguesthatthe Courtmustnow considerthe evidence itdid notconsider

Case 1:09-cv-20756-PAS Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2016 Page 3 of 4

inreachingitsdecisionon summaryjudgment.However,inthiscase,becausetheEleventh

Circuittookjudicialnoticeoftheevidenceatissuerzthatevidencebecamepartoftherecord
before the Eleventh Circuit. Thus, Gillespiehasnotpresented any new and substantially

differentevidencethatwasnotconsidered by the Eleventh Circuit. ln otherwords,theEleventh
Circuithasalready considered theevidencethatGillespienow wantsthisCourtto consider.

Underthe law ofthe casedoctrine,thisCourtisboundby the tindingsoffad and conclusionsof
1aw ofthe Eleventh Circuit,including thatcourt'sconclusionthatGillespie failed to establish
scienter,even withconsideration ofthedocum entsatissue. Consequently, G illespie's M otion
mustbedenied.
Furthennore,even iftheCourtwereto considerthisnew evidence,Gillespie'sM otion
w ould fail. A sthe Sum m ary Judgm entOrdernotes,based on a priorCourtorder,the relevant

timeperiod forpurposesofthe Sum mary Judgm entOrderwaspriorto M ay 24,2007. W hile
G illespie m ay take issue w ith the M ay 24,2007 cut-off,reconsideration ofthatconclusion isnot

eurrentlybeforetheCourtbecausethatconclusion wasnotm adein the Sum m ary Judgm ent
Order. Thedocumentssubmitted by Gillespieprim arilypost-datethetim eperiod relevantto the
Summ ary Judgm entOrderand addressissuesthataroseahertheM ay24,2007 date.Thus,had
theCourt,priorto issuanceoftheSum maryJudgmentOrder,considered thesedocum ents
addressing thelatertim eperiod,the outcom ewould nothavechanged.
Accordingly,itis

zGillespiepointsoutthattheEleventh Circuittookjudicialnoticeofboththeexistence
and the contentofthese docum ents. See 17E-442 at 10.

Case 1:09-cv-20756-PAS Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2016 Page 4 of 4

ORDERED that RelatorJude Gillespie'sRenewed Rule60 M otion to Vacate Summ aly

JudgmentandtoReopenCasegDE-51IJisDENIED.

--z

f
D ox E and O RDERED in M iam i Florida,this S & dayofJune2016.
,

.

,

%

PATRICIA A.SEI

UNITED STATE! D1S RICT JUDGE
cc:

A llcounselofrecord

4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful