Sean Solomon v. Phizer Inc. ( 2023 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 5 SEAN SOLOMON, Case No. 23-cv-01104-NC Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 6 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 7 LEGAL REPRESENTATION PHIZER INC., BIONTECH SE, 8 Re: ECF 5, 7 Defendants. 9 10 This Court orders pro se relator Sean Solomon to show cause why this case should 11 || not be dismissed for lack of legal representation. The United States declined to intervene 12 || in this gui tam action under the False Claims Act on August 18, 2023. ECF 5. Solomon 13 || seeks to proceed with the action pro se. ECF 7. The right to self-representation is a 14 || limited one. See CLE. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). 15 || Pro se litigants may not represent others. Jd. Though relators may initiate gui tam actions, GQ 16 || they do so “in the name of the Government.” Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 5 17 || 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)). Even when the 18 || government declines to intervene, it remains the real party in interest. □□□ Because pro se 19 || relators, like Solomon, cannot represent others, they must have legal representation to 20 || continue with an action on behalf of the government. See id. 21 Because the United States declined, Solomon may not continue litigating this matter 22 || without legal representation. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS Solomon to obtain 23 || representation in this matter by December 4, 2023, or show cause why this matter should 24 || not be dismissed for lack of legal representation. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: November 20, 2023 h-_———— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 28 United States Magistrate Judge