United States of America et al v. Fullford Electric, Inc.

Filing 2

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: This action is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 10/5/22. (JLH, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex
rel. Barry Donnellan and Qui tam,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE SAYER LAW GROUP, P.C.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00019-RRB

SLAYDEN PLUMBING AND
HEATING, P.C.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00020-RRB

AOFS VAN LEEUWEN, PC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00022-RRB

PETE B. HIGGINS DDS, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00023-RRB

JEWEL ISAAC, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00024-RRB

FAIRBANKS ORTHODONTIC
GROUP,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00025-RRB

NORTHLAND AVIATION
SERVICES, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00026-RRB

SAMSON ELECTRIC, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00027-RRB

FULLFORD ELECTRIC, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00028-RRB

GENE’S, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00029-RRB

k2 FAIRBANKS, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00030-RRB

AT&S, INC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00031-RRB

WEST VALLEY VISION CENTER,
INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00032-RRB

CAFÉ DE PARIS CATERING
COMPANY,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00033-RRB

NORTHERN LIGHTS BUSINESS,
INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00034-RRB

TODD Z. WENTZ D.D.S., M.S.,
P.C.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00035-RRB

GROUNDHOGS, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00036-RRB

DENALI MECHANICAL, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00037-RRB

SHANE D. RHOTON, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00038-RRB

MOONSTONE, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00039-RRB

JESKA-ALASKA, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00040-RRB

AURORA ANIMAL CARE (clinic),
INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00041-RRB

TIMMONS & LARSON, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00042-RRB

TCI CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00043-RRB

IMPORT AUTO BODY, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00044-RRB

DRENNON CONSTRUCTION &
CONSULTING, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00045-RRB

AMPED ELECTRIC, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00046-RRB

AUTO TRIM DESIGN OF
FAIRBANKS, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00047-RRB

SUN AIR SHEET METAL, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00048-RRB

ELEMENTS, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-RRB

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 11

KANTISHNA ROADHOUSE, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00050-RRB

FAIRBANKS NISSAN, LLC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00051-RRB

GOETHE, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00052-RRB

PIKE’S ON THE RIVER, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00053-RRB

ALASKA RIVERWAYS, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00054-RRB

BRICE, INCORPORATED,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00055-RRB

FLOWLINE ALASKA, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00056-RRB

GENE’S, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00057-RRB

FOUNTAINHEAD DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00058-RRB

SOURDOUGH EXPRESS, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00059-RRB

GREAT NORTHWEST, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00060-RRB

PDC (CONSULTING ENGINEERS),
INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00061-RRB

G2 CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00062-RRB

DESIGN ALASKA, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00063-RRB

PIKE’S ON THE RIVER, INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00064-RRB

ALASKA EQUIPMENT RENTALS,
INC.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00065-RRB

ALASCCONNECT, LLC,

Case No. 4:22-cv-00066-RRB

Defendants.

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before the Court are 47 civil actions brought by Barry Donnellan, as a relator,
on behalf of the United States of America pursuant to the False Claims Act,
31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. Due to the unique statutory requirements, procedural
functions of the False Claims Act and qui tam actions, and Mr. Donnellan’s recent
litigation strategy, prompt judicial review of these actions is required.
I.

Procedural History & Background
On August 9, 2022, Mr. Donnellan filed two qui tam actions, without the filing

fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 On August 17, 2022, Mr. Donnellan
filed eight qui tam actions, without the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. 2 On August 18, 2022, Mr. Donnellan filed 12 qui tam actions, without
the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 3 On August 19, 2022,
Mr. Donnellan filed 25 qui tam actions, without the filing fee or a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. 4
4:22-cv-00019-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00020-RRB (SEALED).
4:22-cv-00022-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00023-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00024-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00025-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00026-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00027-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00028-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00029-RRB (SEALED).
3
4:22-cv-00030-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00031-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00032-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00032-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00033-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00034-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00035-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00035-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00036-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00037-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00038-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00039-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00040-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00041-RRB (SEALED).
4
4:22-cv-00042-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00043-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00044-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00045-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00046-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00047-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00048-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00049-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00050-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00051-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00052-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00053-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00054-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00055-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00056-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00057-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00058-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00059-RRB
1
2

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 11

Upon the Court’s review, all of these actions are fundamentally similar. 5
These actions bear the exact same complaint format, font, and generalized
language and claim. 6 Each action identifies Mr. Donnellan as a prospective relator
with “direct and independent knowledge of, nonpublic information” that each
Defendant entity took Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, but continued to
operate during April and May 2020. 7
Further, prior orders from Judges Kindred and Gleason made extensive
findings about Mr. Donnellan’s recent pattern of filing qui tam actions on behalf of
Donald Tangwall, a vexatious litigant. 8 For brevity, the Court adopts the findings

(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00060-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00061-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00062-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00063-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00064-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00065-RRB
(SEALED); 4:22-cv-00066-RRB (SEALED).
5
Compare 4:22-cv-00019-RRB (SEALED) with 4:22-cv-00020-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00022-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00023-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00024-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00025-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00026-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00027-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00028-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00029-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00030-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00031-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00032-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00032-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00033-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00034-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00035-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00035-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00036-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00037-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00038-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00039-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00040-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00041-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00042-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00043-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00044-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00045-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00046-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00047-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00048-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00049-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00050-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00051-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00052-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00053-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00054-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00055-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00056-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00057-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00058-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00059-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00060-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00061-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00062-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00063-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00064-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv00065-RRB (SEALED); 4:22-cv-00066-RRB (SEALED).
6
Supra note 5.
7
Supra note 5.
8
Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such
a fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service,
399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are
Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 11

of Judge Kindred in Donnellan, et al. v. Birch, Horton, Bitter, Inc., Case No. 3:22cv-00117-JMK, Docket 4 at 3–6 and Judge Gleason in Donnellan v. Mae, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00016-SLG, Docket 31 at 2–11, and further finds that the abovecaptioned 47 actions are also part of the recent Donnellan-Tangwall litigation
pattern.
In the interest of judicial economy, these actions will be evaluated and
addressed collectively.
II.

Deficient Filings
In order to properly commence a civil action, a litigant must either pay the

filing fee of $402.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 9 A court may
not simply waive prepayment of costs and fees, it must review an application and
financial affidavit in order to make an appropriate factual finding. Mr. Donnellan
has not paid the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, these civil actions are deficient.
III.

Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is “[a] court’s power to decide a case or issue a decree.” 10 The

United States Supreme Court has established that “the federal courts are under

appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R.
Evid. 201.
9
Local Civil Rule 3.1(c).
10
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019).
Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 11

an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction[.]” 11 In a federal court
proceeding, a jurisdictional defect may be raised at any time. 12
A.

Standing

Article III standing “is the threshold question in every federal case” which
determines whether the court has the power to hear a lawsuit. 13 The “irreducible
constitutional minimum of standing consists of three elements . . . [t]he plaintiff
must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” 14 The requirements of standing maintain these jurisdictional
limits by “identify[ing] those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the
judicial process[.]” 15

A plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of

establishing standing. 16
B.

False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA) was enacted in 1863 out of concern that
suppliers to the Union Army were committing fraud. 17 Since its enactment, the
FCA has been amended several times, but the core remains the same; it creates

United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995).
Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013).
13
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
14
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2013) (internal punctuation omitted) (citing
Lujan v. Def’s of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.
Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000)).
15
Munns v. Kerry, 782 F.3d 402, 409 (9th Cir. 2015).
16
Id.
17
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733.
11
12

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 11

a cause of action in which a private citizen may sue on behalf of the federal
government alleging that a third party is defrauding the federal government. This
type of lawsuit is called a qui tam action and the person who files the suit is referred
to as a “relator.” 18 To show a violation of the FCA, a relator must provide sufficient
factual knowledge that (1) the third party made a specific action against the
government, known as a false claim, and (2) the relator knows the third-party knew
that their conduct was fraudulent. 19 In this context, and by statute, a “false claim”
is defined as a demand for money or property made either directly to the federal
government or on the federal government’s behalf, made with knowing intent. 20
Specifically, to be liable under the FCA, the third party must have submitted, or
caused the submission of, a false claim for monetary payment or property from the
federal government with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance of the truth or
falsity of the information, or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity. 21
The FCA also limits who may act as a relator, that is, who may file a qui tam
action. Specifically, qui tam cases are not permitted where: (1) the relator is selfrepresented or proceeding pro se; 22 (2) the relator was convicted of criminal

See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9.
20
31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2).
21
31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1).
22
Stoner et. al. v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., et al, 502 F.3d 1116, 1125–28 (9th
Cir. 2007) (holding that pro se litigants cannot bring qui tam actions as relators, because qui tam
relators represent the United States, not just their own individual interests as permitted for pro se
litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1654).
18
19

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 8 of 11

conduct arising from his role in the violation; 23 (3) another qui tam concerning the
same conduct has already been filed; 24 (4) the government is already party to a
civil or administrative proceeding concerning the same conduct; 25 or (5) if the qui
tam is based on information that has already been disclosed to the public. 26
As a self-represented plaintiff-relator, Mr. Donnellan has no statutory
authority under which he may represent the interests of anyone other than himself,
and no authority to represent the interests of the United States. 27 In Stoner v.
Santa Clara County Office of Education, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
evaluated whether a self-represented litigant may be a qui tam relator. The Ninth
Circuit reasoned that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provided a pro se litigant the right to “plead
and conduct their own cases personally.” 28 It further reasoned that an FCA qui
tam lawsuit represents the interests of the United States and binds the United
States “to any adverse judgment the relators may obtain[.]” 29 Therefore, qui tam
suits must be “carried on in accordance with the established procedure which
requires that only one licensed to practice law may conduct proceedings in court
for anyone other than himself.” 30 The Ninth Circuit unambiguously held “that a pro

31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(3).
31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5).
25
31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(3).
26
31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A).
27
See Stoner et. al. v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., et al, 502 F.3d 1116, 1125–26
(9th Cir. 2007).
28
28 U.S.C. § 1654; see Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1125–28.
29
Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1127.
30
Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1127 (quoting United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6 (8th Cir. 1951)).
23
24

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 9 of 11

se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States[.]” 31 A
qui tam action requires professional legal counsel admitted to practice before the
Court in which the action is filed. 32
Here, Mr. Donnellan filed the above-captioned 47 civil actions as a selfrepresented plaintiff-relator attempting to bring suit on behalf of the United States
of America. However, Mr. Donnellan may not serve as a relator, because he is a
self-represented party. As a self-represented party, Mr. Donnellan does not have
standing to bring this claim. Without standing, this Court does not have jurisdiction
over these actions. Therefore, the above-captioned actions must be dismissed.
IV.

Public Access
The False Claims Act requires that a qui tam complaint be filed under seal,

and remain so for 60 days, unless the Government moves for an extension with
good cause shown. 33 Customarily, courts recognize a “general right to inspect and
copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 34
“[A]ccess to judicial records is not absolute,” 35 although there is a “strong
presumption in favor of access.” 36 As established, above these are not proper qui

Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1127.
Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1125–28. The plaintiff in Stoner was a licensed attorney, however,
“he was not a member admitted to practice before the district court as a matter of the court’s local
rules,” and thus was proceeding pro se before the court. Id. at 1125–26.
33
31 U.S.C. § 3730(b).
34
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978).
35
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (2006).
36
Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003).
31
32

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 10 of 11

tam complaints. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason for these complaints to
remain under seal. Therefore, the Court unseals these actions and makes them
available for public access in the interest of justice.
V.

Conclusion
The civil actions are deficient for lack of filing fees or motions to proceed in

forma pauperis. Even if this deficiency were to be remedied, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over this matter because Mr. Donnellan does not have standing to bring
qui tam claims as a self-represented litigant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

These actions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

2.

The Clerk of Court shall unseal the above-captioned cases.

3.

The Clerk of Court shall issue final judgments in the above-captioned

cases.
DATED this 5th day of October, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge

Donnellan vs. ___; Various Case Numbers
Order of Dismissal
Page 11 of 11