Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02582/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02582-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert Walker; Fernando Moreno; and Juan 

David Camarena; and United States ex. rel. 

Robert Walker, Fernando Moreno and Juan 

David Camarena, 

Plaintiffs/Relators, 

v. 

Community Education Centers, Inc., a 

Delaware Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-02582-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs/Relators’ Motion to Appoint Counsel 

(Doc. 8); (2) Plaintiffs/Relators’ Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Time for 

Service of Process (Doc. 9); (3) Defendant’s Motion to Unseal Case (Doc. 10); and (4) 

Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Doc. 11). 

 On December 4, 2012, Robert Walker, Fernando Moreno, and Juan David 

Camerena (“Plaintiffs/Relators”) moved to file their “qui tam” complaint under seal. 

(Doc. 1). Plaintiffs/Relators argued that such sealing was appropriate because their 

lawsuit contained a cause of action alleging violations of the Federal False Claims Act. 

(Id.). Plaintiffs/Relators acknowledged that pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) such 

actions must remain under seal for at least 60 days and shall not be served on the 

defendant unless the court so orders. (Id.). 

 After the Court granted the Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs/Relators’ Complaint was 

Case 2:12-cv-02582-JAT Document 12 Filed 09/05/13 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

filed under seal. Plaintiffs/Relators’ Complaint contains five counts. In Counts One, 

Two, Three, and Four, it appears that Plaintiffs/Relators assert various claims of 

employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e. Count Five of the 

Complaint purports to be a claim under the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-

3733. (Doc. 7 at 7). In Count Five, Plaintiffs/Relators allege that they “were aware of 

fraud committed against the government in covering up the circumstances surrounding 

the death of the inmate at a CEC facility.” (Id.). 

 Thereafter, Plaintiffs/Relators moved for an extension of time to serve Defendant. 

On July 24, 2013, Defendant appeared in this case and moved to unseal the Record. In its 

Motion to Unseal, Defendant states that “Plaintiffs/Relators served the Complaint on 

[Defendant’s] statutory agent on or around July 3, 2013.” (Doc. 10). There is no 

evidence in the Record that Plaintiffs/Relators ever served the Government with a copy 

of the complaint and a written disclosure of Plaintiffs/Relators’ supporting material 

evidence as required by 31 U.S.C. 3730(b). Moreover, there is no evidence the 

Government was ever given an opportunity to intervene in this case. Finally, the Court 

never ordered the complaint to be served on Defendant as is required before Defendant is 

served pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(2). 

 As a result, Plaintiffs/Relators violated the seal provision of 31 U.S.C. § 

3730(b)(2) by serving Defendant with the Complaint and by giving the Government no 

opportunity to intervene. The seal provision provides an appropriate balance between 

encouraging more private false claims litigation and the government’s need to fully 

evaluate a private enforcement suit to determine if the suit involves matter the 

Government is already investigating and whether it is in the Government’s interest to 

intervene and take over the civil action. U.S. ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 67 

F.3d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1995). These two purposes allow “the qui tam relator to start the 

judicial wheels in motion and protect his litigative rights, [and allow] the government the 

opportunity to study and evaluate the relator’s information for possible intervention in the 

Case 2:12-cv-02582-JAT Document 12 Filed 09/05/13 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

qui tam action or in relation to an overlapping criminal investigation.” Id. The district 

court must balance these two purposes in determining an appropriate sanction for 

violation of the seal. Id. 

 In determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction, the district court must 

consider: (1) whether the Government has been harmed by the disclosure; (2) the nature 

and relative severity of the violation; and (3) the presence or absence of bad faith or 

willfulness. Id. at 245-46. 

 Here, the Government has been irreparably harmed by the disclosure of the 

complaint to Defendant “by the complete failure to abide by any of the seal provisions, 

including failure to serve the government with a copy of the complaint.” Id. at 245. 

Moreover, such disclosure “irreversibly frustrates the congressional goals” underlying the 

sealing provisions. Id. Additionally, the nature and relative severity of the violation in 

this case is extreme. Here, Plaintiffs/Relators failed to comply with any of the 

requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). Finally, in considering whether there was 

willfulness or bad faith, the Record indicates that Plaintiffs/Relators knew the Defendant 

could not be served with the Complaint unless the Court so ordered, and 

Plaintiffs/Relators chose to serve the Complaint in the absence of a Court Order. (See

Doc. 1 (acknowledging the complaint cannot be served on Defendant unless the Court so 

orders)).1

 

 As a result, the balance of factors favors dismissal of Plaintiffs/Relators’ 

Complaint to the extent it asserts violations of the False Claims Act because 

Plaintiffs/Relators violated the seal. As a result, to the extent Plaintiffs/Relators’ 

Complaint asserts violations of the False Claims Act, it is dismissed without prejudice to 

the Government bringing suit on such claims. 

 Next, to the extent that Plaintiffs/Relators intended to bring claims asserting 

 1

 The Court also notes that Plaintiffs brought this suit pro se and individuals are 

not entitled to proceed pro se in False Claims Act cases. Stoner v. Santa Clara County 

Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1125-28 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Case 2:12-cv-02582-JAT Document 12 Filed 09/05/13 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

violations of Title VII, the Court is aware of no authority allowing Plaintiffs/Relators to 

assert Title VII claims in a qui tam False Claims Act action. In a False Claims Act case, 

the Government is the Plaintiff and the individuals who bring the suit are the relators. In 

general, in an employment lawsuit, the individuals who are harmed by the adverse 

employment action are the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs/Relators’ claims 

asserting violations of Title VII were improperly brought in a False Claims Act qui tam 

lawsuit, those claims are also dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs/Relators 

reasserting in an appropriate lawsuit. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that, to the extent Plaintiffs/Relators’ Complaint asserts 

violations of the False Claims Act, it is dismissed without prejudice to the Government 

bringing suit on such claims. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Plaintiffs/Relators intended to 

assert claims under Title VII, those claims are dismissed without prejudice to 

Plaintiffs/Relators reasserting in an appropriate lawsuit. 

 As a result, this case is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice and the Clerk of 

the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs/Relators’ Motion to Appoint 

Counsel (Doc. 8) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs/Relators’ Motion for Extension of 

Time to Extend Time for Services of Process (Doc. 9) is denied as moot. 

 

/// 

// 

/ 

Case 2:12-cv-02582-JAT Document 12 Filed 09/05/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Unseal Case (Doc. 10) 

is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall unseal this case and all docket entries in this 

case. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Answer (Doc. 11) is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 5th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02582-JAT Document 12 Filed 09/05/13 Page 5 of 5