USA ex rel Blyn v. Triumph Group et al
Filing
101
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying in its entirety Plaintiff's 98 Motion to Set Aside Judgment and to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/2/2018. (eat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. JOE
BLYN,
ORDER
Case No. 2:12-cv-00922
Plaintiff,
v.
District Judge Dale A. Kimball
TRIUMPH GROUP, INC. TRIUMPH GEAR
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.
Before the court is Plaintiff-Relator Joe Blyn’s Motion to Reinstate the Dismissed Case
and for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 98).
BACKGROUND
This case was originally filed by Joe Blyn on October 1, 2012. On July 25, 2013,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint voluntarily removing Blyn from the case and adding two
additional plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 6). Blyn has therefore not been a party in this case for over four
years. It remains unclear why Blyn voluntarily removed himself from the case.
On April 26, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the first-to-file
provision of the False Claims Act (FCA) bars a party other than the government from
intervening or bringing a related action. This court denied the motion to dismiss and granted an
interlocutory appeal.
On October 24, 2017, the 10th Circuit reversed this court’s order that denied the motion
to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 95). U.S. ex rel. Little v. Triumph Gear Sys. Inc., 870 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir.
2017). The 10th Circuit held that the first to file rule, as it pertains to the FCA, barred adding
1
additional parties to the lawsuit. Id. Because the complaint was originally filed by Joe Blyn, it
was improper for new parties, other than the government, to intervene. The 10th Circuit therefore
held that the district court erred in not granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id.
On appeal, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the complaint to rename Blyn as a plaintiff
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653. The 10th Circuit denied Plaintiff leave to amend holding “§ 1653
doesn’t empower federal courts to amend a complaint so as to produce jurisdiction where none
actually existed.” Id. at 1252. “[T]he amended complaint – not the original complaint – is the
starting point for the jurisdictional determination.” Id.
Prior to dismissal of this action, the Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend his complaint at
the district court to rename Blyn as a plaintiff. On December 1, 2017, in accordance with the
10th Circuit’s Mandate, this court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and closed the case. After the
case was closed Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside judgment, and also sought leave to file an
amended complaint to rename Joe Blyn as a plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiff argues that the court’s dismissal of this action is not required by the Court of
Appeals ruling nor is it in accord with the court’s previous rulings as to the viability of the claims
raised by Joe Blyn. The court is not persuaded that it erred in dismissing this action. Joe Blyn
was not a plaintiff, nor had he been for over four years when the court dismissed the case. At no
point in the course of litigation at the district court did the Plaintiff seek to rename Blyn as a
plaintiff. At the time the court closed the case there were no plaintiffs left in the lawsuit.
The 10th Circuit has held that a motion to amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) should be granted when the moving party can show proper grounds, such
as:
2
(1) An intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Thus, a motion for reconsideration [under Rule 59(e)] is appropriate where the
court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. It is
not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that
could have been raised in prior briefing.
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). The Plaintiff does not seek to amend judgment on any of the above grounds.
Plaintiff argues in his reply that relief may also be justified under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 60(b)
because the court made manifest errors of fact and law. The court disagrees. The court did not
error in dismissing the case because there was no longer a plaintiff. In fact, the court would have
erred in retaining a case where jurisdiction no longer existed.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff does not provide a valid basis for amending judgment,
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above reasoning, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and to Amend
his Complaint is DENIED in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 98).
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL,
United States District Judge
3
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?