The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, recently issued an opinion reaffirming the need for counsel in qui tam cases under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). In particular, pro se plaintiffs, or individuals proceeding without attorney representation, filed suit against multiple defendants alleging qui tam claims under the FCA as well as 21 federal and state-law claims. Relying on Timson v. Sampson, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, with prejudice, for their failure to obtain counsel as required under the FCA.[1]
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failing to obtain counsel with regard to plaintiffs’ FCA claims but reversed the district court’s granting the dismissal with prejudice and dismissing the 21 federal and state-law claims on the same grounds as the qui tam claims. Concerning prejudice, the Eleventh Circuit explained that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice because the dismissal was not on the merits (e.g., plaintiffs’ substantive allegations).
The Eleventh Circuit also explained that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ 21 other federal and state-law claims because its lack of jurisdiction on the qui tam claims under the FCA did not necessarily mean it also lacked jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Further, the district court did not explain why it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining federal and state-law claims, nor did the district court provide any basis for dismissing those claims with prejudice. Rather, the district court grouped plaintiffs’ 21 federal and state-law claims with the qui tam claims and incorrectly dismissed on the same jurisdictional grounds.
Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the qui tam FCA claims for failing to obtain counsel but reversed the district court’s dismissal of the remaining federal and state-law claims as well as the district court’s dismissing of the entire complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ complaint was therefore remanded to the district court to revise the dismissal of the qui tam FCA claims to be without prejudice and separately analyze the remaining 21 federal and state-law claims.
Practical Takeaways
- Relators must obtain counsel in order to pursue qui tam claims under the FCA in order for the court to have jurisdiction; and
- The Court’s jurisdictional requirements of qui tam claims under the FCA do not necessarily apply to other federal and state-law claims.
If you have any questions, please contact:
- David Honig at (317) 977-1447 or dhonig@wp.hallrender.com;
- Jake Kolisek at (317) 977-1428 or jkolisek@wp.hallrender.com; or
- Your regular Hall Render attorney.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
