Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV37656, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37656    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff Kevin Lofton (proceeding in pro per) filed this qui tam action on behalf of California Student Aid Commission, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, California Breast Cancer Research Program, Local Initiative Health Authority for Los Angeles County, Statewide Research Grant Authorities, and The State of California.  On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

On February 2, 2023, the Court noted that Plaintiff is self-represented and thus may not have the ability to pursue litigation on behalf of the State of California.  Accordingly, the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal.

On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the Court’s OSC and a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”).

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff argues that the OSC should be dismissed because under California Rules of Court, rule 2.573(e)(2), qui tam actions are exempt from rule 3.110 and the case management rules in title 3, division 7.  Plaintiff also argues that under Government Code section 12652, subdivision (c)(1), actions brought under the False Claims Act may be dismissed only with the written consent of the court and the attorney general.

This OSC does not involve time for service of the FAC under Rule 3.110.  With respect to other case management issues and dismissal of a qui tam action, the Court may at any time in its discretion strike out any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

The Motion for Order to Dismiss Court Order Re: OSC is DENIED.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

Although no California statute codifies a general right to represent oneself, California courts have consistently acknowledged this right.  (Baba v. Board of Supervisors (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 504, 523-524.)  However, non-attorneys may not practice law for others without being active members of the State Bar.  (Drake v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830; see Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125 [“No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar.”].)

By bringing claims under the False Claims Act, Plaintiff attempts to represent the State of California or a political subdivision.  (See Gov. Code, § 12652, subd. (c)(1).)  He cannot do this without being an attorney or being represented by an attorney.  (Cf. Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ. (9th Cir. 2007) 502 F.3d 1116, 1126-1127 [a pro se relator may not prosecute a federal False Claims Act case on behalf of the government].)

Plaintiff’s False Claims Act claims are not filed in conformity with the law.  Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the first through sixth causes of action in the FAC.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a SAC to add additional factual allegations about Defendants’ involvement in the alleged conduct.  However, the proposed SAC also contains the now-stricken qui tam claims.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART.  Within 30 days, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with his proposed amendments to his individual causes of action but without the causes of action brought under the False Claims Act.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 20th day of June 2024