TAYLOR
v.
THE MULTIPLAN NETWORK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A pro se relator cannot maintain a qui tam action, and failure to retain counsel after warning warrants dismissal with prejudice.
Relators John and Tunya Taylor filed a qui tam action. The United States declined to intervene. The relators failed to retain counsel by the court-imp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Qui Tam Action cases and more on FLexlaw
ex rel. JOHN TAYLOR and TUNYA TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Relators,
v. Case No. 8:19-cv-2169-T-60CPT
THE MULTIPLAN NETWORK, CHUBB
COMPANY (AMERICA), CHUBB COMPANY (INTERNATIONAL), HLA ENROLLMENT CENTER, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE CONCEPT INC. a/k/a ACI, MY BENEFITS KEEPER a/k/a MBK, MPH ACQUISITION HOLDING LLC, and POLARIS INTERMEDIATE CORP d/b/a MULTIPLAN,
Defendants. ______________________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
This matter is before the Court upon consideration of the amended complaint (Doc. 5) and the “Government’s Notice of Election to Decline Intervention” (Doc. 17), filed by the United States of America on December 24, 2019. On December 24, 2019, the United States filed its notice of election, declining to intervene in this case. (Doc. 17). Typically, at this juncture, the Court would order that the amended complaint be unsealed and served upon Defendants. The Court, however, finds that Relators John and Tunya Taylor are unable to proceed due to their failure to retain counsel in violation of this Court’s Order. The Eleventh Circuit has held that a pro se relator cannot bring or maintain a qui tam action. See Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Holyfield, 309 F. App’x 331, 333 (11th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the relator could not proceed pro se in the qui tam action); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F. 3d 870, 873-74 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a private individual cannot maintain a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act as a pro se relator). The Relators were warned about their inability to proceed pro se, and they were given ample opportunity to retain counsel. (Doc. 10). However, they failed to do so before the December 23, 2019, deadline. The Court notes that on March 17, 2020, the Relators filed a motion seeking a 120-day extension to retain counsel and a motion to appoint counsel,1 citing the recent pandemic.2 (Docs. 20, 21). However, the Relators did not make their request for an extension of time to hire an attorney until almost three months after the Court’s deadline, demonstrating a willful disregard for this Court’s Orders. Consequently, this case is dismissed with prejudice as to Relators John and
Tunya Taylor due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the willful failure of the Relators to retain counsel in violation of the Court’s October 23, 2019, Order. See (Doc. 10); United States v. GE Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-120-T-33TGW, 2018 WL 3831185, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2018) (dismissing qui tam case with
C| | fp / ot ee
-TOMBARBER i (asssti‘“‘—itit~™*”