United States of America et al v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc et al
ORDER Dismissing Without Prejudice Count One Of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Linda Lopez on 5/4/2022.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ddf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.,
Case No.: 21cv1109-LL-BLM
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE COUNT ONE OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
APEX SYSTEMS, LLC,
Currently before the Court is relator Plaintiff Erik Leckner’s (“Plaintiff”) “Response
to Order Requiring Plaintiff To Show Cause Why Count 1 Should Not Be Dismissed.”
ECF No. 28. The Court has given Plaintiff multiple extensions to show cause why Count
1 of his amended complaint, a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C.
§§ 3729-3733, should not be dismissed on the ground that Plaintiff is not represented by
counsel. See Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126–28 (9th Cir.
2007) (holding that qui tam relators may not proceed pro se in FCA actions). Per the
Court’s October 21, 2021 Order, Plaintiff was given until November 3, 2021 to show cause
why Count 1 of his Amended Complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend,
but without prejudice to future refiling by a licensed attorney. ECF No. 4. The Court stated
that “[b]ecause Plaintiff is unrepresented by counsel, his FCA qui tam claim (“Count 1”)
fails as a matter of law.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has subsequently requested and been granted
three extensions to show cause, most recently until May 2, 2022. ECF Nos. 10, 12, 18.
In the Court’s most recent order granting Plaintiff’s extension of time to show cause,
the Court set a deadline for Plaintiff “to show cause, on or before May 2, 2022, why Count
1 should not be dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to future refiling
by a licensed attorney.” ECF No. 18. The Court warned that “this is the last continuance it
will grant for showing cause” and that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, no further
continuances will be granted by the Court.” Id. at 2. Notwithstanding this, Plaintiff has
failed to refile Count 1 by a licensed attorney. Instead, Plaintiff now disputes “whether a
qui tam relator can proceed pro se on Count 1.” ECF No. 28 at 2. The Court finds the
arguments made in Plaintiff’s Response unpersuasive because the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in
Stoner is binding precedent on this Court. 502 F.3d 1116.
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to meet the May 2, 2022 deadline to find a licensed
attorney to refile Count 1 of his Amended Complaint [ECF No. 2], the Court hereby
DISMISSES Count 1 without prejudice. Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks
additional time to find a licensed attorney in this matter, the request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 4, 2022
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?