Ellis, et al. v. City of Minneapolis, et al.

Filing 136

ORDER (Written Opinion) - The amended complaint of relators Andrew Ellis and Harriet Ellis 127 is STRICKEN. The amended complaint of relator Michael W. Blodgett 129 is STRICKEN. Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file an answe r or otherwise respond to the amended complaints 132 is DENIED AS MOOT. This action will be dismissed with prejudice unless relators file either an amended complaint or a motion to sever no later than February 28, 2013. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 02/15/13. (bjs) Modified on 2/15/2013 (kt).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
ANDREW ELLIS, HARRIET ELLIS, and
MICHAEL W. BLODGETT,
Plaintiff-Relators,

Case No. 11-CV-0416 (PJS/TNL)

ORDER

v.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF ST. PAUL, a
municipal corporation; METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL, as an entity requesting and
receiving HUD, CDBG, HOME and other
federal funds; and JOHN AND JANE DOES,
individually, jointly, and severally,
Defendants.

In February 2011, relators Andrew Ellis, Harriet Ellis, and Michael W. Blodgett brought
this action pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. The original
complaint was interminably long and largely incomprehensible, and it failed to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in other respects. Accordingly, on December 21, 2012, the
Court ordered that relators “file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8, Rule 11, and
all other procedural rules no later than January 31, 2013” if they wished to continue litigating this
matter. ECF No. 125 at 5. Of note, the Court ordered relators to file “an amended complaint” —
singular.
Relators did not comply with the Court’s order, adding to the long list of instances in
which they have been unwilling or unable to comply with the orders of this Court, the local rules
of this District, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without moving to sever or otherwise

seeking leave of the Court, relators took it upon themselves to file two amended complaints —
one filed by the Ellises [ECF No. 127] and another filed by Blodgett [ECF No. 129].
The Court strikes these amended complaints, as the parties did not have the permission of
the Court to split this action into two actions. The Court also warns relators that the Court’s
patience with them is nearing an end. Both relators and their attorneys are close to having this
action dismissed — and to having monetary sanctions imposed on them — for their repeated
failures to follow the orders of this Court and the applicable procedural rules.
This is relators’ last chance: If relators wish to proceed with this case, they must jointly
file a single amended complaint by February 28, 2013. Once again, the amended complaint must
not exceed 10,000 words and must comply with Rule 8, Rule 11, and all other procedural rules.
If a relator believes that some legal impediment stands in the way of their jointly filing a
single amended complaint, then that relator must file a motion to sever by February 28, 2013. If
such a motion is filed, it will be addressed in the first instance by Magistrate Judge Tony N.
Leung.
Relators are warned, however, that the Court is highly unlikely to permit them to pursue
two separate lawsuits, particularly in light of the fact that the FCA authorizes only one lawsuit to
be brought “based on the facts underlying the pending action.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5). Relators
filed this action jointly, and they will have to figure out a way to prosecute this action jointly,
with or without the intervention of Judge Leung.

-2-

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The amended complaint of relators Andrew Ellis and Harriet Ellis [ECF No. 127]
is STRICKEN.

2.

The amended complaint of relator Michael W. Blodgett [ECF No. 129] is
STRICKEN.

3.

Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file an answer or otherwise
respond to the amended complaints [ECF No. 132] is DENIED AS MOOT.

4.

This action will be dismissed with prejudice unless relators file either an amended
complaint or a motion to sever no later than February 28, 2013.

Dated: February 15, 2013

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge

-3-