Huggins et al v. Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 29

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO PLAINTIFF. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/26/2021. Show Cause Response due by 8/19/2021.***Order was emailed to Plaintiff at [e-mail]***Order was also mailed to Plaintiff at P.O. Box 12246, San Francisco, CA 94112. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2021) Modified on 7/26/2021 (ahm, COURT STAFF).

Case 3:18-cv-03976-JSC Document 29 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANTONIO HUGGINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-03976-JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
PLAINTIFF

v.
KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff Antonio Huggins filed this qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §

15

3729-3733. The FCA imposes civil liability on any person who, among other things, “knowingly

16

presents ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government. 31

17

U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). A private person, called a relator, may bring an FCA action “in the name

18

of the Government,” known as a qui tam action. Id. § 3730(b)(1).

19

On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw from the case, noting that

20

Plaintiff gave knowing and free assent to counsel’s withdrawal. (Dkt. No. 26.) The Court granted

21

the motion. (Dkt. No. 27.) As no new counsel has appeared on Mr. Huggins behalf, Mr. Huggins

22

is currently proceeding without representation by legal cousnel. However, a qui tam action may

23

not be brought by a plaintiff proceeding without being represented by an attorney. See Stoner v.

24

Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “[b]ecause

25

qui tam relators are not prosecuting only their own case but also representing the United States

26

and binding it to any adverse judgment the relators may obtain,” an unrepresented plaintiff may

27

not prosecute this claim under the False Claims Act).

28

Accordingly, Plaintiff must obtain an attorney to represent him for purposes this

Case 3:18-cv-03976-JSC Document 29 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 2

1

False Claims Act action by August 19, 2021, that is, an attorney must make an appearance

2

on Plaintiff’s behalf by August 19, 2021. If no attorney authorized to practice in this District

3

makes an appearance by that date, the Court may prepare a report and recommendation

4

recommending that a district judge dismiss his complaint. See Hucul v. California, 812 F. App’x

5

626 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiff’s

6

qui tam action after being warned that plaintiff could not pursue qui tam action without an

7

attorney).

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 2021

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2