1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel
. JOHN RAGGIO , Plaintiff,

v. JACINTOPORT INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al

. , Defendant. Civil Action No. : 10
- 0 1908 (BJR)

MEMORANDUM O PINION

D ENYING R ELATOR ’ S M OTION FOR L EAVE TO S ERVE H IS F IRST A MENDED C OMPLAINT ; G RANTING D EFENDANT J ACINTOPORT ’ S M OTION TO D ISMISS
I. INTRODUCTION
The P laintiff, the United States of America ex rel. John Raggio , has filed a Motion for
Leave to Serve Relator’s First Amended Complaint . In response, Defendant , Jacintoport International, LLC (hereinafter “Jacintoport ”) , has moved to d ismiss, or, in the a lternative, to

s trike Relator’s First Amended Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 20, 28. Having reviewed the motion s , oppos ition s, and replies thereto, as well as all other related materials, the Court finds and rules as
follows:
II. BACKGROUND 1
On November 5, 2010 , John Raggio ( “Relator Raggio”) brought a qui tam action under the provisions of the False Claims Act ( the “FCA”) against Defendants Jacintoport, Seaboard

1 For purposes of resolving the instant motions, the Court assumes as true the facts presented by the United States in its Complaint in Intervention . Dkt. No. 15; see ZilYen, Inc. v. Rubber Mfrs. Ass’n , Civ. Action No. 12

- 0433, 2013 WL 1302012, at *1 n.2 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2013) (noting that the court accepts “plaintiff’s allegations . . . as true for the purpose of deciding the defendant’s motion [to dismiss]”).2 Marine, Ltd., and Seaboard Corporation ( the latter two, collectively , “Seaboard Defe ndants”)

. 2
Dkt. No. 1. Relator R aggio filed his complaint under seal , alleging that Jacintoport and Seaboard
Defendants fr audulently overcharged the United States Government ( the “Government”) for “logistics services provided in connection with overseas transportation.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. As required, R elator R aggio served the complaint on the Government. See 31 U.S.C. § 373 0 (b)(2) (requiring private persons to serve on the government a copy of the sealed complaint)

. T he
Government notified th e Court on August 20, 2012 of its election to intervene

. Dkt. No. 12

. U pon the Government’s notice of intervention , the Court ordered that the case be
unsealed and the Government filed its Complaint in Intervention

. 3 Dkt. No s . 13 , 15; Minute Entry ( Aug. 21, 2012 )

. On December 18, 2012, Jacintoport filed its Answer to Government’s Complaint in Intervention

. Dkt. No. 24.
O n November 20, 2012, Relator Raggio filed his First Amended Complaint , which mirrors the claims asserted by the Government in its Complaint in Intervention. See Dkt. No. 20 (“ Relator Raggio files his First Amended Complaint to conform his claims for relief to the
claims for relief set forth in the United States’ Complaint in Intervention. ” ). I n accordance with the procedural requirements of qui tam actions under the FCA, Relator Raggio moved for leave

to se rve that First Amende d C omplaint on Jacintoport

. Dkt. No. 20 ; see also 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (“The complaint . . . shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders.”)

.

2 The False Claims Act imposes civil liability upon “any person who, inter alia , knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim [to the Government] for payment or approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a)(1)(A). The FCA allows a private citizen, known as a relator, to bring a qui tam action in the Government’s name. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b) (“A person may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Gov ernment.”).

3 The Government, in its Complaint in Intervention, elected not to pursue claims against the Seaboard Defendants. Dkt. No. 15. It formally notified this Court of its choice not to proceed against the Seaboard Defendants and consented to Re lator’s notice of partial voluntary dismissal vis

- à

- vis the Seaboard Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 19, 23.3 In response to Relator Raggio’s motion for leave to serve the First Amended Complaint , J acin toport moved to d ismiss, or, in the alternative, to strike Relator Raggio’s First Amended Complaint. D kt. No. 28 . With Relator Raggio’s Motion for Leave to Serve Relator’s First Amended Complaint and Defendant Jacintoport’s Motion to Dismiss Relator’s First Amended Complaint now ripe for review, the Court turns to the parties’ arguments and the applicable legal
standards.
III. DISCUSSION Jacintoport argues that Raggio’s First Amended Complaint has no continuing vitality
because the Government has intervened a nd Relator Raggio’s claims are duplicative. Dkt. No.
28 at 5 . It further argues that “ defend [ing] against two substantively identical complaints would compel [it] . . . to li tigate spurious issues that are wholly re dundant, immaterial, or impertinent. ”
Id. In response, Relator insists that he has a right to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Dkt. No. 30 at 5. Under the False Claims Act, once the Government elects to intervene in a qui tam action, the Government, not the relator, has “the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action.” 31
U.S.C. § 3730(c); cf

. In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig. , Civil Action No. 01

- 12257 , 2007 WL 4287572 , at *4 (D. Mass. Dec. 6, 2007) (“[O] nce the government has intervened, the relator has no separate free

- standing FCA caus e of action.” (citing United States ex rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 1 47 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 1998)))

. Moreover, if the
defendant can s how “that unrestricted participation during the course of the litigation by the [relator] . . . would cause the defendant undue burden or unnecessary expense, the court may limit the [relator’s] participation in the litigation.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2) (D); see also United
States ex rel. Becker v. Tools & Metals, Inc. , Civil Action No. 05

- 0627, 2009 WL 855651 , at *64 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2009) ( observing that a court has discretion to limit a relator’s “participation in the prosecution of the claim ”). Indeed, Relator Raggio ’s amended claims are identical to the Government’ s C omplaint in
Intervention

. Compare Dkt. No. 20 with Dkt. No. 15

. Because of the similarity between the two complaints , the Court agrees that permitting the Relator Raggio ’s unrest ricted participation in the litigation would cause Jacintoport “undue burden or unnecessary expense

. ” See United
States ex rel. Feldman v. City of New York , 808 F. Supp. 2d 641, 648 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ( dismissing the relator’ s complaint because “government’ s claims

. . . [were] duplicative of those
of the relator ” but relator continues as a party). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that ( 1 ) Relator Raggio’s Motion for Leave to Serve Relator’s First Amended Complaint is
DENIED as moot ; and (2) Defendant Jacintoport’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the A lternative, Motion to Strike
Relator’s First Amende d Complaint is GRANTED. 4

June 7, 2013

BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 The Court’s ruling in no way precludes Relator Raggio from pursuing his rights under the FCA. Feldman , 808 F. Supp. 2d at 649 (highlighting that the court’s “dismissal in no way diminishes [a relator’s] continuing statutory rights delineated in § 3730 of the FCA ”) ; see also 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) (awarding qui tam plaintiffs to a percentage of the “ proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim”).