United States Ex Rel. Jaha C. Smith v. Empire City Labs

Background

Jaha C. Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a qui tam action—a case in which a private person, called a relator, sues on behalf of the government—against Empire City Labs and other defendants. The complaint asserted fraud under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, and state-law claims for battery and for “being violated [to] her person.” The opinion states that Smith is an attorney admitted in the Southern District of New York, which allowed her to represent herself as an FCA relator.

The FCA requires a relator to file the complaint under seal, serve the government with the complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information, and refrain from serving the defendants until the court authorizes service. Smith filed the complaint on February 6, 2024, without indicating that it should be sealed. The court later sealed the case and instructed Smith not to serve the defendants and to serve the government as required by the FCA. Smith nevertheless filed proof that she had served the defendants on March 22, 2024.

On May 16, 2024, the court stated that Smith had not filed proof of service on the government and warned that failure to do so by May 29 could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). As of the dismissal order, Smith had not filed that proof, contacted the court to request more time, or explained her noncompliance.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Rule 41(b) factors for dismissal based on failure to prosecute. It found that approximately four months had passed without Smith serving the government; she had been reminded of her obligations and expressly warned that the case could be dismissed; and the defendants and the government were prejudiced. The defendants had received the complaint but could not properly respond or know whether Smith or the government would prosecute the action. The government had not been able to investigate the claims, determine whether they affected an existing investigation, or decide whether to intervene before the defendants were served.

The court also found that it had a strong interest in managing its docket and that no lesser sanction would adequately address the continuing prejudice. Although courts generally hesitate to dismiss a self-represented litigant’s case for procedural failures, the court concluded that Smith’s status did not justify avoiding dismissal. It further stated that failing to comply with the FCA’s sealing and service requirements warranted dismissal with prejudice.

Because the court dismissed the federal FCA claim, it considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—instead of deciding those claims. Relying on the early stage of the case and the lack of a remaining federal interest, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed Smith’s FCA qui tam claim with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice. The court ordered the Clerk of Court to unseal and close the case and to send the order to Smith by email and mail.