Suppressed v. Suppressed

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/14/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. ALAN GRAVETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
McKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

07 C 482

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Despite its age (as the case number indicates, it was filed
in January 2007), this qui tam action under the Federal False
Claims Act (“Act,” 31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733) did not become active
until October 2010 when the United States elected not to
intervene and to proceed with the action (see 31 U.S.C.
§3730(b)).

Under the Act that enabled relator Alan Gravett

(“Gravett”) to proceed in lieu of the government.

Now counsel

for Gravett has moved to withdraw from the case without objection
from Dr. Gravett, and this Court granted that motion upon its
presentment at yesterday’s motion call.
During the course of the proceeding on the motion, this
Court raised the question whether a nonlawyer relator such as
Gravett could maintain the action pro se.

In that respect this

Court explained that it would seem anomalous for Gravett to act
essentially as proxy for the United States--after all, a
nonlawyer cannot represent anyone else in any other situation.
But having posed that question for future consideration, at the

conclusion of the hearing this Court simply continued the case to
an August 26, 2011 status hearing date to address its
contemplated future.
At the time of the motion hearing, this Court had not had
the opportunity to engage in any research on the issue whether
Dr. Gravett could go it alone if he so chose.

But brief

subsequent research has quickly turned up the opinion in United
States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2004), which held
squarely “that a pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam
action, because he is acting as an attorney for the government”
(id. at 775).

Accordingly Gravett must obtain new counsel in

time to attend the next status hearing on his behalf as relator,
failing which this action will be dismissed (as was done in Lu,
although that case had some added factors that made a threshold
dismissal appropriate).

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

July 14, 2011

2