Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

United States of America, ex rel. Renee Luchtman, et al. v. Homestead Hospice, et al.

District Court, N.D. Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:15-cv-00840

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex

rel. RENEE LUCHTMAN, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,                                                      

      v.                     CIVIL ACTION FILE                    

                             NO. 1:15-CV-00840-TWT                

HOMESTEAD HOSPICE, et al.,

 Defendants.                                                      

                OPINION & ORDER                                   

This is a qui tam action. It is before the Court on the Plaintiff-Relators’
Joint Motion for Attorney Fees [Doc. 91]. For the following reasons, the Motion
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As a result, the Plaintiff-Relators’
Motion for an Order Directing the Clerk’s Office to Issue Summonses [Doc. 119]
is GRANTED and their Motion for Status Conference [Doc. 129] is DENIED as
moot. The Defendant Eshag, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 128] is DENIED.
I. Background

The Plaintiff-Relators (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action in 2015 alleging
violations of the False Claims Act and the Georgia False Medicaid Claims Act.1
After years of extensions, the United States and the State of Georgia elected
to intervene in this action in June 2025 and then settled with the parties as to
certain claims, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the remaining merits

1 In October 2025, two other cases alleging similar claims were
consolidated into this action. [ Doc. 102].

claims of the Plaintiffs with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
[Docs. 88, 89]. The Plaintiffs specifically reserved their attorneys’ fees and cost
claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (d). [Doc. 89 at 3]. The Court entered the

dismissal order on June 9, 2025. [Doc. 90]. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Attorney Fees on June 23, 2025. Although the Complaint was unsealed when
the Court dismissed the action, the Defendants were never formally served in
this action and thus were never served with the Motion for Attorney Fees via
CM/ECF. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to serve the Complaint
and Motion on the Defendants and for the Defendants to file a response to the

Motion. [Doc. 104 at 3]. The Plaintiffs served the Defendants, who have now
responded to the Motion. [Doc. 131].

II. Legal Standards

A plaintiff-relator who brings a qui tam action in which both (1) the
Government elects to intervene and (2) obtains a settlement from the
defendant “shall . . . receive an amount for reasonable expenses which the court
finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and

costs.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (d)(1). “All such expenses, fees, and costs shall be
awarded against the defendant.” The parties here do not dispute the
application of the lodestar method to determine the amount of attorney’s fees;
instead, the Defendants dispute what amount is an appropriate award and
against whom.

                        2                                         

Under the lodestar analysis, “the [C]ourt must multiply the number of
hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the customary fee charged in
the community for similar legal services.”

    , [469 F.3d 1357, 1359](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/77520/association-of-disabled-americans-v-neptune-designs-inc/#1359) (11th Cir. 2006). The lodestar can then be 

adjusted up or down based on a variety of factors, including the degree of the
plaintiff’s success in the suit. ; , 548 F.3d

1348, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2008).

III. Discussion

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs are requesting approximately $1,820,000

in fees and $13,000 in expenses. (Pls.’ Mot. for Atty Fees, at 1-2). The Plaintiffs
filed their supporting documentation under seal. [Doc. 93]. However, for
reasons that are unclear, the Plaintiffs served the Defendants with only
redacted versions of their supporting documentation when they served the
Complaint and Motion for Attorney Fees on the Defendants. ( Defs.’ Resp.
in Opp’n to Mot. for Atty Fees, at 7-10). The Defendants contend that, without
the full information, they are unable to fully and fairly respond to the

Plaintiffs’ request for fees.2 In part, the Court agrees. The redacted materials
submitted by the Plaintiffs completely redact the descriptions of work
performed for each line item and include only the date, number of hours billed,

2 Because the Defendants had not yet been served nor had counsel enter
appearances, they would have been unable to access sealed filings through the
Court’s CM/ECF system.

3

and who billed the time. [ , Doc. 95-2]. This limited information does

not allow the Defendants to fairly assess whether the number of hours the
Plaintiffs claim were “reasonably expended” or whether the time was spent

towards claims for which the Plaintiffs were ultimately successful.

, 469 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir. 2006).

The Plaintiffs’ redaction is especially pertinent given that the Defendants
“recognize that some award is due,” and question only “what is the appropriate
amount.” ( Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for Atty Fees, at 4). As the parties
agree that some award of fees is warranted, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs’

Motion for Attorney Fees as to that determination and will deny the remainder
of the Motion without prejudice at this time. The Plaintiffs are directed to serve
the Defendants with unredacted versions of the declarations that were
previously served in support of their fee request within 14 days of the date of
this Order. The request by the Defendants for additional information such as
engagement letters is denied. The Court will then allow the Defendants 14
days to respond, at which time the Court will take the issue of what fee award

is proper under advisement.

The Defendants also point out that the Plaintiffs seek fees from four
entities and individuals who were not named in the original qui tam suits and
were never served. The Plaintiffs have a pending motion for the issuance of
summonses as to those non-parties. [ Doc. 119]. These non-parties are

                        4                                         

Abdsharafat Family Trust LLC, Masoud Pirouz, Nasrin Hashemi, and
Traditions Health, LLC. [ at 2]. Apparently, the Clerk refused to issue
summonses as to these parties because they were not named as Defendants in

the original Complaints. The Defendants ask the Court to deny the Motion for
Attorney Fees as to these non-parties. The Plaintiffs argue that these
non-parties are jointly and severally liable for their fees and expenses because
the non-parties were signatories to the parties’ Settlement Agreement. The
Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. All of the parties who signed the Settlement
Agreement obtained a release of the claims against them and are jointly and

severally liable for the Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses. Thus, the
Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Directing the Clerk’s Office to Issue Summonses
[Doc. 119] will be granted. And just to make the record clear, the Plaintiffs are
directed to file within 14 days from the date of this order a copy of the
Settlement Agreement (unsealed).

Finally, the Court notes that Defendant Eshag LLC has filed a Motion
to Dismiss [Doc. 128]. The Court understands the stipulation of dismissal [Doc.

89] and the order approving that stipulation [Doc. 90] to have completely
resolved all claims against all Defendants in this action. In particular, the
Order specifically dismisses all claims against the Defendants based on
conduct covered in Recital G of the settlement agreement. [Doc. 90 at 2-3].
Recital G provides, , that “the United States and Georgia contend that

                        5                                         

they have certain civil claims against . . . Eshag, LLC” arising out of certain
specified conduct. [ at 3]. The Order states that these claims were dismissed
with prejudice. [ ]. The Order goes on to state that “[a]ll remaining claims

asserted by the [Plaintiffs] on behalf of the Government are dismissed with
prejudice to the [Plaintiffs] and without prejudice to the Government.” [ ].
The parties asked the Court to direct the entry of final judgment, which it did
in the Order. [ ]. Having settled the claims against it and obtaining a final
judgment, Eshag, LL’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 128] is DENIED on the grounds
of res judicata.

                  IV. Conclusion                                  

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff-Relators’ Joint Motion for
Attorney Fees [Doc. 91] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is

granted as to the request for fees but denied without prejudice to the Plaintiffs’
obligation to serve on the Defendants unredacted versions of the declarations
in support of its motion, and an unredacted copy of the Settlement Agreement,
within 14 days of the date of this Order. The Defendants shall have 14 days

from the date of service to file a supplemental response to the Motion for
Attorney Fees. The Court will then take the issue of what fee award is proper
under advisement.

The Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Directing the Clerk’s Office to Issue
Summonses [Doc. 119] is GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to issue

                        6                                         

summonses as to the non-parties listed therein. The Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Status Conference [Doc. 129] is DENIED as moot. Finally, the Defendant
Eshag, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 128] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of February, 2026.

                                   A  gratta   DE   ofp 
                                    THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. 
                                    United States District Judge