From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huggins v. Kratos Def. & Sec. Sols.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 24, 2021
18-cv-03976-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021)

Opinion

18-cv-03976-JSC

08-24-2021

ANTONIO HUGGINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO REASSIGN AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 29

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Antonio Huggins filed this qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729-3733. The FCA imposes civil liability on any person who, among other things, “knowingly presents ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). A private person, called a relator, may bring an FCA action “in the name of the Government, ” known as a qui tam action. Id. § 3730(b)(1). On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw from the case, noting that Plaintiff gave knowing and free assent to counsel's withdrawal. (Dkt. No. 26.) The Court granted the motion. (Dkt. No. 27.) As no new counsel has appeared on Mr. Huggins behalf, Mr. Huggins is currently proceeding without representation by legal counsel. However, a qui tam action may not be brought by a plaintiff proceeding without being represented by an attorney. See Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “[b]ecause qui tam relators are not prosecuting only their own case but also representing the United States and binding it to any adverse judgment the relators may obtain, ” an unrepresented plaintiff may not prosecute this claim under the False Claims Act).

Accordingly, on July 26, 2021, the Court ordered Mr. Huggins to obtain an attorney to represent him in this action by August 19, 2021 and warned him that fail to do so could result in an order of reassignment and report and recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 29.) To date, Mr. Huggins has not responded to the Court's Order and no counsel has appeared on his behalf.

The Court's order was mailed and emailed to Mr. Huggins at his last known address. Thus, while the order that was mailed was returned as undeliverable, Mr. Huggins should have received email notice of the Court's order, and in any event, under Civil Local Rule 3-11, Mr. Huggins is required to keep the Court apprised of his address.

Because the unserved Defendants have not consented to the Court's jurisdiction this Court lacks jurisdiction See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss case on initial screening because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before magistrate judge). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to REASSIGN this action to a district court judge and the Court RECOMMENDS that the district court judge dismiss the action because Mr. Huggins cannot prosecute a qui tam action without counsel and Mr. Huggins has not obtained counsel despite being warned that he must do so. See Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1127.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's ultimate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Huggins v. Kratos Def. & Sec. Sols.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 24, 2021
18-cv-03976-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021)
Case details for

Huggins v. Kratos Def. & Sec. Sols.

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO HUGGINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 24, 2021

Citations

18-cv-03976-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021)