United States of America, ex rel. Melchor Karl T. Limpin v. Lyft Inc., Blue Shield of California Promise Health Plan, Call the Car, Scan Health Plan, and Saferide Health Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a qui tam action where the relator failed to respond to an order to show cause regarding his pro se status after the government declined to intervene. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, unsealed specific filings, and denied the relator's request for judicial notice as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice as to Relator Melchor Karl T. Limpin and dismissed without prejudice as to the United States.” | agree with court The dismissal follows from the Ninth Circuit precedent that a private relator cannot proceed pro se in a qui tam action after the government declines to intervene. The relator failed to obtain counsel or respond to the specific inquiry regarding his status, and the government consented to dismissal. |
Unsealing of specific filings“The Court hereby ORDERS the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, the United States’ Notice of Declination, and this Order be unsealed.” | agree with court Unsealing is a discretionary administrative action often taken upon dismissal to allow public access to the core pleadings and the government's declination, while maintaining the seal on other potentially sensitive materials. |
Denial of request for judicial notice“Relator’s request for judicial notice is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court Because the case is being dismissed, any pending motions or requests for judicial notice are rendered moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the binding Ninth Circuit precedent from Stone v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ. to determine that the relator cannot proceed pro se. It properly addresses the relator's non-responsive arguments by distinguishing the cited Fifth Circuit case and noting that general disagreement with a declination does not constitute an APA or Due Process violation. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate given the failure to obtain counsel and the government's consent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No.: 25-cv-1264-JES-MMP MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 (1) DISMISSING CASE AND v. 14 UNSEALING ACTION; and LYFT INC., BLUE SHIELD OF 15 CALIFORNIA PROMISE HEALTH (2) DENYING REQUEST FOR 16 PLAN, CALL THE CAR, SCAN JUDICIAL NOTICE HEALTH PLAN, AND SAFERIDE 17 HEALTH INC., [ECF No. 18] 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 On December 8, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause ordering Relator 23 Melchor Karl T. Limpin (“Relator”) to provide an update on his pro se status or acquisition 24 of counsel to continue this action by Thursday, January 22, 2026. ECF No. 14. On January 25 22, 2026, Relator filed a response. ECF No. 17. In his response, Relator does not address 26 the Court’s order to provide an update on his pro se status or acquisition of counsel to 27 continue this action. See generally Id. Instead Relator makes three nonresponsive 28 arguments: (1) requiring him to obtain a private lawyer after the United States has declined 1 to intervene would be futile because private relators may not represent the interests of the 2 United States; (2) Relator challenges the United States’ decision to decline to intervene in 3 the case as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); and 4 (3) Relator challenges the United States’ decision to decline to intervene as a violation of 5 procedural or substantive Due Process. Id. at 2-4. 6 A plaintiff cannot proceed pro se in a qui tam action in which the government has 7 declined to intervene. See Stone v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 8 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Given the fact that Congress did not expressly authorize a qui tam 9 relator to proceed pro se when acting on behalf of the United States, it ‘must have had in 10 mind that such a suit would be carried on in accordance with the established procedure 11 which requires that only one licensed to practice law may conduct proceedings in court for 12 anyone other than himself.’” (quoting United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6 (8th Cir. 1951)); 13 see also Turner v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., No. 15CV424 BEN (NLS), 2015 WL 4757055, at 14 *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015). Thus, despite Relator’s arguments, he must have counsel in 15 order to prosecute this matter. 16 Additionally, Relator cites United States ex rel Montcrief v. Peripheral Vascular 17 Associates, P.A., to support his argument that private relators may not represent the 18 interests of the United States. 133 F.4th 395 (5th Cir. 2025). However, in that case, the 19 private relator prosecuted the action with counsel after the United States declined to 20 intervene. Id. at 402. Relator challenges the United States declination decision, but general 21 disagreement with the decision does equate an APA or Due Process violation. 22 In its order to provide an update on his pro se status, the Court cautioned Relator 23 that if he did not obtain counsel, the action would be dismissed. ECF No. 14. The United 24 States has previously filed a notice of consent to dismissal. ECF No. 16. 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice as to 26 Relator Melchor Karl T. Limpin and dismissed without prejudice as to the United States. 27 The Court hereby ORDERS the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, the 28 United States’ Notice of Declination, and this Order be unsealed. All other contents of the 1 Court’s file in this action remain under seal and not be made public. The seal is also lifted 2 to all other matters occurring in this action after the date of this Order. Relator’s request 3 || for judicial notice is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 2, 2026 □□ oo 4, 7 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28