United States Ex Rel. Jaha C. Smith v. Empire City Labs
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-00855
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In ABC v. DEF, Judge Garnett warned that the pro se plaintiff’s case would be dismissed unless she served required materials on the Government.
The pro se plaintiff, ABC, must provide proof that she served the Government with the complaint and required disclosure by May 29, 2024, or the case may be dismissed. The defendants identified as DEF and the Government are affected by the service requirements.
What happened
In ABC v. DEF, the pro se plaintiff filed a complaint under the False Claims Act. The court sealed the case and told her not to serve the defendants until the court gave further permission, while reminding her to serve the Government.
The plaintiff later filed proof that she had served the defendants, but she did not file proof that she had served the Government with the complaint and the required disclosure of evidence and information. The court gave her until May 29, 2024, to file that proof.
Judge Garnett ordered the Clerk of Court to send her the order by mail and email. The court warned that it would dismiss the case for abandonment or failure to prosecute if she did not meet the deadline; this order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- United States Ex Rel. Jaha C. Smith v. Empire City Labs · No. 1:24-cv-00855
- Garnett
- June 11, 2024
Background
The pro se plaintiff filed the complaint on February 6, 2024. The case was initially assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon and later reassigned to Judge Margaret M. Garnett. Judge Garnett ordered the case sealed in its entirety under the False Claims Act, which requires certain complaints brought by private persons to be filed confidentially and kept under seal until the court allows service on the defendant.
Service issue
The court emailed the plaintiff explaining that the case was sealed, instructing her not to serve the defendants until further order, and reminding her that she had to serve the Government. The plaintiff later filed proof of service on the defendants. She had not filed proof that she served the Government with a copy of the complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information in her possession, as required by the cited statute and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Order and possible consequence
The court gave the plaintiff until May 29, 2024, to file proof of service on the Government. It warned that, if she failed to do so, the court would dismiss the case for abandonment or failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail and email a copy to the plaintiff. It did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.