United States of America et al v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association et al.

Filing 184

ORDER Granting #178 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider #171 Order. Relator Premsrirut is DISQUALIFIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that #175 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney John Warshawsky is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/28/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. James
R. Adams et al.,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
vs.
WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION et al.,

13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00535-RCJ-PAL
ORDER

15

This is a federal qui tam action against various mortgage lenders and homeowner

16

associations for violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The Court previously dismissed as

17

against two Defendants for failure to timely serve them and against all Defendants for failure to

18

state a claim. The Court ruled that the lawsuit was not subject to the public disclosure bar

19

because the news articles presented by Defendants post-dated the allegations made in the original

20

Complaint, but that Federal National Mortgage Corp. and the Federal Home Loan Corp.

21

(collectively, the “GSEs”) were not “agencies, establishments, or instrumentalities” of the United

22

States, so defrauding them (assuming Plaintiffs could state the elements of the statute) was not

23

actionable under the False Claims Act (the “Act”). Specifically, the Court noted that there was

24

conflicting case law in this Circuit on the issue, and to the extent the case law in Plaintiffs’ favor

25

controlled over the case law in Defendants’ favor, it had been superseded by statute in 2008

1

when Congress unambiguously stripped the GSEs of any federal status they may have previously

2

had. The Court noted that Chief Justice Roberts himself had, when sitting on the Court of

3

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, clearly ruled that statutory language disclaiming federal status

4

disqualified an organization as a proper plaintiff or relatee under the Act. The present case is not

5

distinguishable. Plaintiffs have appealed.

6

In making its rulings, the Court also denied as moot a motion by Defendant Bank of

7

America, N.A. (“BOA”) to disqualify Relator Puoy Premsrirut. BOA had alleged that Premsrirut

8

filed the present action both as counsel and Relator while simultaneously representing BOA in

9

another matter, contrary to Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7. Premsrirut had withdrawn

10

as counsel but remained as a Relator, thereby continuing to sue her client, BOA, directly.

11

BOA has asked the Court to reconsider disqualifying Premsrirut, because Premsrirut has

12

filed an appeal. No party has timely objected to the present motion, and objections are as of this

13

writing almost two months late. Premsrirut has therefore consented to the Court granting the

14

motion. See L.R. 7-2(d).

15
16
17

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 178) is GRANTED
and Relator Premsrirut is DISQUALIFIED.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 175) is GRANTED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated this 28th day of of May, 2014.
Dated this 28th day April, 2014.

21
22

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

23
24
25
Page 2 of 2