United States of America, State of California ex rel. NR v. Del Mar Union School District, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court lifted the seal on the qui tam action following the government's declination to intervene and ordered the pro se plaintiff to obtain counsel by July 20, 2026, or face dismissal without prejudice. The court determined that a relator cannot proceed pro se in a qui tam action on behalf of the United States.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Unsealing of the action and specific documents“The seal is lifted from this action in all respects, except as specified in Paragraph 3 below; The Complaint, this Order, and the Notice of Election by the United States and the State of California to Decline Intervention are unsealed” | agree with court The decision to unseal is consistent with the procedural posture of a qui tam action after the government has declined to intervene, which typically allows the case to proceed publicly unless specific protective orders are in place. The order distinguishes between the initial filing documents and the rest of the file, which is a standard procedural mechanism. |
Order to show cause regarding requirement of counsel“Thus, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide an update on his pro se status or acquisition of counsel to continue this action by Monday, July 20, 2026. If Plaintiff does not obtain counsel, this action is subject to dismissal without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent that a qui tam relator acting on behalf of the United States must be represented by counsel. The order provides a reasonable deadline and a clear consequence (dismissal without prejudice) for non-compliance, which is a standard procedural remedy. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal requirement for counsel in non-intervened qui tam actions based on binding Ninth Circuit precedent. The unsealing provisions are standard and appropriately tailored to the stage of litigation. The deadline for obtaining counsel is specific and the consequence is clearly stated.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-1340-JES-BLM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. NR, 12 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 v. (1) UNSEALING ACTION; and 14 DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL (2) TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING 15 DISTRICT, et al., REQUIREMENT OF COUNSEL 16 Defendants. 17 18 The United States of America (“United States”), having declined to intervene in the 19 above-captioned action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B), and the State of California, 20 having elected to decline intervention pursuant to Government Code section 12652, 21 subdivision (c)(6)(B), IT IS ORDERED that: 22 1. The seal is lifted from this action in all respects, except as specified in 23 Paragraph 3 below; 24 2. The Complaint, this Order, and the Notice of Election by the United States 25 and the State of California to Decline Intervention are unsealed; 26 27 28 1 3. All other contents of the Court’s file in this action, filed and lodged to date, 2 shall remain permanently under seal and shall not be made public or served 3 upon any defendant or other party or person; 4 4. The seal is lifted as to all papers and records filed or lodged in this action after 5 the date of this Order; 6 5. The parties shall serve all pleadings, notices, motions, orders, and other papers 7 hereafter filed or lodged in this action, including supporting memoranda and 8 any notice of appeal, upon the United States as provided for in 31 U.S.C. § 9 3730(c)(3) and on the State of California; and 10 6. Should the Relator or defendants propose that this action be dismissed, settled, 11 or otherwise discontinued, the parties shall provide the United States and the 12 State of California with notice of the same and the Court will provide the 13 United States and the State of California with an opportunity to be heard 14 before ruling or granting its approval. 15 Plaintiff now proceeds pro se in a qui tam action in which the government has 16 declined to intervene, which is impermissible in this Circuit. See Stoner v. Santa Clara 17 County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Given the fact that 18 Congress did not expressly authorize a qui tam relator to proceed pro se when acting on 19 behalf of the United States, it ‘must have had in mind that such a suit would be carried on 20 in accordance with the established procedure which requires that only one licensed to 21 practice law may conduct proceedings in court for anyone other than himself.’” (quoting 22 United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6 (8th Cir. 1951))). Thus, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff 23 to provide an update on his pro se status or acquisition of counsel to continue this action 24 by Monday, July 20, 2026. If Plaintiff does not obtain counsel, this action is subject to 25 dismissal without prejudice. See Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1127. 26 // 27 // 28 // I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: June 22, 2026 3 Str J. 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28