Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00457-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. )

MARY HENDOW and JULIE ALBERTSON, ) 2:03-CV-0457-GEB-DAD

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Leeland O. White (“White”) moves for reconsideration of an

order filed December 7, 2007, which denied White’s motion to intervene

in this False Claims Act qui tam action. Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e), a court should grant reconsideration of an order if,

inter alia, the court committed clear error. School Dist. No. 1J v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (construing Rule

59(e)). White argues that clear error was committed in the December 7

order since White was the “first to file” a qui tam action against

Case 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD Document 147 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendant, and other courts have held that the “first to file” rule

has no exceptions. (White’s Mot. for Recons. at 1-3.) 

The December 7 order denied White’s motion to intervene

since only “the Government” may intervene in qui tam actions. See 31

U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5). Further, as a pro se litigant White is barred

from prosecuting a qui tam action as a relator. See Stoner v. Santa

Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007)

(holding that “a pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action on

behalf of the United States”); United States ex rel. White v. The

Apollo Group, Inc., 2006 WL 487853 at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2006)

(dismissing a qui tam action filed by White since White “is unable to

prosecute a [False Claims Act] claim pro se”). Moreover, White has

not shown that he was the “first to file” since he has not shown that

the fraud he alleged in the action he filed against Defendant in 2002,

concerned the same “facts underlying the pending action,” and the

action White filed in 2005 was filed after Relators filed the pending 

action. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5).

Since White has failed to demonstrate ground for

reconsideration, White’s motion for reconsideration is denied and the

hearing on this matter scheduled for April 7, 2008, is vacated. No

further motions seeking reconsideration of the denial of White’s

motion to intervene will be considered. The parties are relieved of

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD Document 147 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 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

any obligation to respond to any motion filed by White in this matter,

unless ordered to do so by the undersigned judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD Document 147 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 3