Case: 20-11260 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNTIED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 20-11260
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-02169-TPB-CPT
JOHN TAYLOR,
Realtor,
TUNYA TAYLOR,
Realtor,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
vs.
THE MULTIPLAN NETWORK,
CHUBB COMPANY (AMERICA), et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
_____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_____________________
(August 18, 2020)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 20-11260 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 2 of 4
John and Tunya Taylor, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s
dismissal of their complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
I
The Taylors sought to proceed pro se on their qui tam claims under the False
Claims Act,
31 U.S.C. § 3729, against The Multiplan Network and several other
defendants. Although the district court advised them that they needed counsel for
their qui tam claims under Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 873-74 (11th Cir.
2008), the Taylors did not obtain counsel in the four months that followed. Because
Timson holds that a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction if a qui tam claim
under the False Claims Act is brought by a pro se relator, and because the Taylors
did not retain counsel, the district court correctly dismissed their qui tam claims.
We acknowledge the Taylors’ argument that Timson was wrongly decided.
But that case binds us until it is overruled or abrogated by the Supreme Court or by
the en banc Eleventh Circuit. See Smith v. GTE Corp.,
236 F.3d 1292, 1301-02 (11th
Cir. 2001).1
The dismissal of the Taylors’ qui tam claims, however, should have been
without prejudice. As Timson explains, a district court lacks subject-matter
1
Insofar as the Taylors challenge the district court’s decisions (a) to not appoint counsel for them
and (b) to not give them additional time to obtain counsel, we find no abuse of discretion. See
Lane v. Philbin,
835 F.3d 1302, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016).
2
Case: 20-11260 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 3 of 4
jurisdiction when a pro se relator seeks to bring qui tam claims under the False
Claims Act, and a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is without
prejudice because it is not on the merits. See, e.g., Stalley v. Orlando Regional
Healthcare System, Inc.,
524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008). On remand, the
district court will need to convert the dismissal of the qui tam claims to one without
prejudice.
II
In their amended complaint, the Taylors asserted not just qui tam claims under
the False Claims Act, but also 21 other federal and state-law claims against a number
of defendants. The district court’s order of dismissal did not discuss any of these
other claims – jurisdictionally or substantively – but nevertheless dismissed the
entire case with prejudice as to the Taylors. See D.E. 23 at 2 (“This case is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as to Relators John and Tunya Taylor.”).
This was error. First, the district court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as
to the Taylor’s qui tam claims under Timson did not mean that jurisdiction was
absent as to the other federal and state-law claims. Second, the district court did not
explain why it lacked jurisdiction over the other claims. Third, the district court did
not provide any basis for dismissing those claims on the merits with prejudice. See
Harris v. Heinrich,
919 F.2d 1515, 1516-17 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The absence of
3
Case: 20-11260 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 4 of 4
specific basis for [the ruling] makes meaningful appellate review of the order
impossible.”).
On remand, the district court will need to separately analyze the Taylors’
additional 21 claims. We express no view on those claims at this time.
III
The district court’s order of dismissal is affirmed in part and reversed in part,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings.2
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
2
As to all other issues raised by the Taylors, we summarily affirm.
4
