United States of America et al v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc et al

Filing 4

ORDER: (1) Requiring Plaintiff to Show Cause Why Count 1 Should Not be Dismissed; and (2) Unsealing Action( Order to Show Cause Brief due by 11/3/2021), Order to Unseal Case. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/20/2021.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.,
ERIK LECKNER

14

ORDER:

Plaintiffs,

13

(1) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY
COUNT 1 SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED; AND

v.

16

GENERAL DYNAMICS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND
APEX SYSTEMS, LLC,

17

Defendants.

15

Case No. 21-cv-1109-BAS-BLM

(2) UNSEALING ACTION

18
19
20
21

Plaintiff seeks to prosecute a False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam claim on behalf of

22

the United States as a part of his action.1 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 118–120, ECF No. 2.) The

23

United States declined to intervene, pursuant to the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B). (ECF

24

No. 3.) Where, as here, the United States declines to intervene, the person who initiated

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also raises a cause of action for retaliation in violation of the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 121–22.) “There is no question that if Plaintiff has properly pleaded a claim for
retaliation, []he is permitted to do so irrespective of the fate of h[is] FCA qui tam claim.” Hayes v. Dep’t
of Educ. of City of New York, 20 F. Supp. 3d 438, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

-121cv1109

1

the action has the right to conduct the action. Id. § 3730(c)(3). However, a person not

2

represented by counsel cannot prosecute the qui tam claim on behalf of the United States.

3

See Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2007)

4

(declining to interpret the general pro se provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1654 as allowing qui tam

5

relators to proceed without the representation of counsel because “qui tam relators are

6

. . . also representing the United States” and holding that “[t]he FCA itself does not

7

authorize a relator to prosecute a § 3729 violation pro se”).

8

unrepresented by counsel, his FCA qui tam claim (“Count 1”) fails as a matter of law. An

9

amendment of the pleading cannot cure this defect.

Because Plaintiff is

10

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, on or before November

11

3, 2021, why Count 1 should not be dismissed without leave to amend, but without

12

prejudice to future refiling by a licensed attorney.

13

The Court also ORDERS that:

14

1. The Complaint, the Amended Complaint, the United States’ Notice of

15
16
17

Declination, and this Order be unsealed;
2. The seal be lifted as to all other matters occurring in this action after the date of
this Order;

18

3. The parties shall serve all pleadings and motions filed in this action, including

19

supporting memoranda, upon the United States, as provided for in 31 U.S.C.

20

§ 3730(c)(3); and

21

4. All orders of this Court shall be sent to the United States.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

DATED: October 20, 2021

25
26
27
28
-221cv1109