United States of America, ex rel. et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 30

Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, by September 24, 2010, Barlow shall cause new counsel to file an appearance. If counsel does not do so, this case will be dismissed.(O'Leary, Dennis)

United States of America, ex rel. et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Doc. 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel., PHILLIP BARLOW Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-11540-MLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WOLF, D.J. September 2, 2010

Based on an ex parte submission, the court issued a sealed order that allows the motion by plaintiff-relator Phillip Barlow's attorneys to withdraw from representation. Barlow, who is not a lawyer, had been on notice of his attorneys' desire to withdraw since May, 2010. Most of the claims in this case were dismissed in 2007, having been settled by the government. However, if Barlow seeks to pursue the remaining qui tam claims on behalf of the United States, he may only do so if he is represented by counsel. See Local Rule 83.5.3(c) ("A person who is not a member of the bar of this court, and to whom sections (a) and (b) are not applicable, will be allowed to appear and practice before the court only in his own behalf."); Otero v. Int'l Gen. Elec. Co., 966 F.2d 1440 (Table), 1992 WL 144690, at *1 (1st Cir. 1992) (stating that, while nonlawyer could represent himself pro se, he could not represent other plaintiffs); U.S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, No. 05 Civ.

Dockets.Justia.com

4921(HB), 2006 WL 880044, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2006) ("[Q]ui tam suits are analogous to class actions and shareholder derivative suits in that courts have required named plaintiffs suing on behalf of others to retain counsel."); see also Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873-74 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that qui tam relator could not maintain action pro se, and stating this holding is in accordance with all circuits to address the issue); Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Our conclusion that a pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States is consistent with the decisions of other circuits to have addressed the issue."); U.S. ex rel. Szymczak v. Covenant Healthcare Systems, Inc., 207 Fed. App'x 731, 732 (7th Cir. 2006) (Table) ("[A] qui tam on behalf of the government and not himself. comply with the general rule prohibiting relator . . . sues He therefore must nonlawyers from se

representing other litigants. [] And, a rule against pro

plaintiffs representing the government 'operates to filter out frivolous litigation that can redound to the harm of the

represented party.'") (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, by September 24, 2010, Barlow shall cause new counsel to file an appearance. does not do so, this case will be dismissed. If counsel

/s/ Mark L. Wolf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

3