Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06523/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06523-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 

SIMRAT RANDHAWA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

BARA INFOWARE, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: 17-cv-06523 SBA 

ORDER 1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

2) GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AND PARTIAL UNSEALING

Dkt. 21, 24 

On January 13, 2020, Relator Simrat Randhawa (“Relator”) filed a Notice of 

Dismissal [Without Prejudice] and Request for Partial Unsealing, and [Proposed] Order 

Thereon in this qui tam action. Dkt. 21. Relator seeks to dismiss the action without 

prejudice to her rights or the rights of the United States. Id. The United States consents to 

the dismissal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). Id. It also requests that the Complaint, 

Summons, Case Scheduling Order, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and anticipated Court 

order dismissing the action, as well as any subsequent filings, be unsealed. Id. 

On January 17, 2020, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a Report and 

Recommendation Regarding Request for Dismissal (“R&R”). Dkt. 24. Magistrate Judge 

Spero notes that, although Relator purports to file a “notice of dismissal,” a Court order is 

required. Id. (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) (“The action may be dismissed only if the 

Case 4:17-cv-06523-SBA Document 28 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for 

consenting.”)). Finding no reason to deny the request for dismissal without prejudice and 

partial unsealing, Magistrate Judge Spero recommends that the Court grant the same. 

However, because a magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to dismiss an action without the 

consent of all parties—including non-appearing defendants—Magistrate Judge Spero 

ordered that the action be reassigned to a district judge. The deadline to file objections to 

the R&R was January 31, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

On January 21, 2020, this Court issued an Order Regarding Request for Partial 

Unsealing (“Unsealing Order”), proposing to enlarge the scope of the unsealing beyond 

those filings identified by the United States. Dkt. 27. The Court identified the filings that 

would remain under seal and invited the parties to file any objection to the proposal by 

January 31, 2020. The Court advised that, absent any objection, the action would be 

unsealed in the manner described in the Unsealing Order. Id. 

To date, the Court has received no objections to the R&R or the Unsealing Order. In 

the absence of a timely objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, “the 

court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee notes to 1983 

amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see 

also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“The 

statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 

otherwise.”). The Court has reviewed the record and finds no clear error. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The R&R (Dkt. 24) is ADOPTED and the Notice of Dismissal and Request for 

Partial Unsealing (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED. 

2. The action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the rights of Relator or the 

United State of America. 

Case 4:17-cv-06523-SBA Document 28 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3. The Clerk shall UNSEAL the action and all filings, except the following: 

 Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to 

Intervene, Dkt. 10; 

 Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or 

Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 11 

 Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to 

Intervene, Dkt. 12; 

 Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or 

Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 13; 

 Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to 

Intervene, Dkt. 14; 

 Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or 

Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 15; 

 United States’ Notice Concerning Possible Breach of Seal, Dkt. 17; 

 Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to 

Intervene, Dkt. 18; and 

 Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or 

Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 19. 

 The Clerk shall SEAL the filings identified above. 

 4. This Order terminates the action, and the Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/04/20 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06523-SBA Document 28 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 3