Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00261/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00261-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EVELYN LI,

M.D.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP HEALTH

CARE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON

HOSPITAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, ST.

ROSE HOSPITAL, NANCY FARBER,

MICHAEL MAHONEY, CALIFORNIA

HOSPITALIST MEDICAL CORPORATION

and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-00261 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On June 26, 2006, plaintiff Evelyn Li, M.D. requested voluntary dismissal of her qui

tam action under the False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act. The United States

and California had both declined to intervene in this action. The United States and California

have also both consented to dismissal of the action. Plaintiff has stated that she is receiving no

compensation from defendants for the dismissal, nor have any of defendants been served. 

Having reviewed supplemental submissions from plaintiff, the United States, and California,

this order GRANTS voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

The United States has broad discretion to seek dismissal of a qui tam action. “[T]he

decision to dismiss has been likened to a matter within the government’s prosecutorial

Case 3:06-cv-00261-WHA Document 24 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

discretion in enforcing federal laws.” Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp.,

151 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Indeed, the United States can even

obtain dismissal of a qui tam action over a relator’s objections, even if potentially meritorious,

provided that the Attorney General articulates how the dismissal is rationally related to a

legitimate government purpose. Id. at 1145. Such legitimate government purposes include

consideration of cost. “[T]he government can legitimately consider the burden imposed on the

taxpayers by its litigation.” Id. at 1145. The United States submits it is unwilling to currently

bear the cost of pursuing Li’s qui tam action. This is a sufficient justification to approve

dismissal of this action under the False Claims Act.

Likewise, the State of California’s approval of plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal

is sufficient. “The California False Claims Act is patterned similar federal legislation.” 

Laraway v. Sutro & Co. Inc., 96 Cal. App. 4th 266, 274 (2002) (citation omitted). Accordingly,

the “good cause” required for California to dismiss a qui tam action under CFCA exists “where

the dismissal is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, and not arbitrary,

capricious, made in bad faith, based on improper or illegal motives, founded on an inadequate

investigation, or pretextual.” Id. at 275–76. As with the United States, California has

concluded after investigation that Li’s qui tam action fails to warrant expenditure of state funds,

particularly given the difficulty of proving the type of illegal-kickback scheme alleged in

plaintiff’s complaint (Br. 4). This rationale for approving dismissal is rationally related to

legitimate purposes, and no indication of any improper motive has been found.

Where a relator’s request for voluntary dismissal is validly approved by the government,

the only other standard in play is the liberal standard for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See, e.g., Doe v. Dow Chemical Co., 343 F.3d 325, 330 (5th Cir.

2003). In this circuit, “[a] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under

Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a

result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, given that defendants have

not even been served, it is clear that they will suffer no legal prejudice by allowing voluntary

dismissal. 

Case 3:06-cv-00261-WHA Document 24 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Dismissal of qui tam actions should ordinarily be without prejudice. There is no reason

to deviate from this rule here. See McGough v. Covington Techs. Co., 967 F.2d 1391, 1397

(9th Cir. 1992). 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Li’s action is dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00261-WHA Document 24 Filed 07/21/06 Page 3 of 3