Jackson v. Northern California School of Construction, LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Case No. 1:17-cv-01733-JLT-EPG STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. 12 MALINDA JACKSON, 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE APPROPRIATE DISPOSITIONAL 14 v. DOCUMENT 15 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF (ECF No. 30) CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Malinda Jackson filed this qui tam action on December 22, 2017, raising, in part, 21 claims under the False Claims Act, the California False Claims Act, as well as state contract and 22 tort claims. (ECF No. 1). On October 23, 2018, the State of California declined to intervene. 23 (ECF No. 8). On December 13, 2021, the United States declined to intervene. (ECF No. 19). 24 On December 14, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report by February 11, 25 2022, informing the Court of the status of the case and whether Plaintiff intended to prosecute this 26 action. (ECF No. 21). After multiple extensions, Plaintiff has now filed a status report, stating that 27 Plaintiff “has decided that she will not be pursuing prosecution of this action and has asked that 28 counsel seek a voluntary withdrawal of her complaint.” (ECF No. 30, p. 2). 1 In many civil actions, a voluntary dismissal is permitted without a court order by a 2 Plaintiff filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a 3 motion for summary judgment,” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or by the 4 filing of “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared,” under Rule 5 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Alternatively, an action may otherwise be dismissed with a court order at the 6 plaintiff’s request “on terms that the court considers proper,” under Rule 41(a)(2). 7 However, qui tam actions have special requirements regarding dismissal. See United 8 States v. L-3 Commc’ns EOTech, Inc., 921 F.3d 11, 18 (2d Cir. 2019) (noting that, in qui tam 9 actions, the “general Rule 41(a) framework is subject to several constraints imposed by the [False 10 Claims Act]”); Polansky v. Exec. Health Res. Inc., 17 F.4th 376, 389 (3d Cir. 2021) (noting that 11 Rule 41(a) is subject to the requirements of the False Claims Act). For claims brought under the 12 False Claims Act, “[t]he action may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give 13 written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting,” under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). 14 See L-3 Commc’ns EOTech, Inc., 921 F.3d at 18 (noting that, under § 3730(b)(1), “the relator 15 may not voluntarily dismiss such [a qui tam] action without the written consent of the court and 16 the United States Attorney General”). Likewise, for claims brought under California’s False 17 Claims Act, “the action may be dismissed only with the written consent of the court and the 18 Attorney General or prosecuting authority of a political subdivision, or both, as appropriate under 19 the allegations of the civil action, taking into account the best interests of the parties involved and 20 the public purposes behind this act,” under California Government Code § 12652(c)(1). Plaintiff 21 shall bear these requirements in mind in “seek[ing] a voluntary withdrawal of her complaint.” 22 (ECF No. 30, p. 2). 23 Based on the status report, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 24 1. Plaintiff shall have until July 8, 2022, to file an appropriate dispositional document in this 25 case. 26 2. Although this Court has issued a prior order unsealing future filings (ECF No. 21), given 27 Plaintiff’s counsel’s prior representations about not receiving court filings, the Clerk of 28 Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to all counsel who have appeared on record: 1 Katherine Boyd, Michael Macko, Lynn Ernce, John Edwards, and Brendan Ruddy. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4] Dated: _ June 21, 2022 [spe ey □ 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28