USA et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc et al
ORDER re Notices of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF Nos. 362 & 363 ), requesting the USA provide the court with a written response by 05/23/2014 regarding consent to dismissal and reasons for consenting. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 05/21/2014. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States Of America,
ex rel. Lynn E. Szymoniak,
C/A No. 0:10-cv-01465-JFA
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.;
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.; Lender
Processing Services, Inc.; DocX, LLC;
CitiMortgage, Inc., f/k/a Citi Residential
Lending, Inc., AMC Mortgage Services, Inc.;
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage d/b/a
America’s Servicing Company, Bank of
America Corporation, as successor-in-interest
to LaSalle Bank; Bank Of New York Mellon
Corporation; Citibank National Association;
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company;
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas;
HSBC USA National Association;
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank National Association;
U.S. Bank National Association; and Wells
Fargo Bank National Association,
In this qui tam action, brought under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et
seq., the relator has filed two notices of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF Nos. 362–63. In one notice, the relator seeks to
dismiss voluntarily all claims against Bank of America Corp., as successor-in-interest to LaSalle
Bank; CitiMortgage, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, d/b/a America’s Servicing Company; and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ECF No.
In another notice, the relator seeks to dismiss voluntarily all “claims relating to the
Government’s acquisition and holding of mortgage-backed securities.” ECF No. 363.
The FCA provides that a qui tam action “may be dismissed only if the court and the
Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting.” 31
U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has construed this provision to mean
that such “written consent” is applicable to matters voluntarily dismissed. See United States ex
rel. O’Malley v. Xerox Corp., 846 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Section 3730(b)(1) is
intended to reach voluntary dismissals and not dismissals based on substantive grounds.”); see
also United States ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 91 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting
Minotti v. Lensink, 895 F.2d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1990) (“[W]e have previously construed this
provision to apply . . . ‘where a plaintiff seeks voluntary dismissal of a claim or action brought
under the False Claims Act. . . .’”).
Accordingly, the court asks that the United States provide a written response by May 23,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 21, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?