Idrobo v. Microsoft

Background

Louis Idrobo, proceeding without a lawyer, sought permission to file a proposed amended complaint against The Microsoft Corporation under seal temporarily. He cited 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), a provision concerning the confidential filing and service of a False Claims Act whistleblower complaint. He also asked to file the proposed second amended complaint using only a first initial and last name or only a last name.

Idrobo said the proposed complaint would include a federal False Claims Act claim, in addition to a New York City Human Rights Law claim. He alleged that Microsoft knowingly submitted false certifications in connection with obtaining federal funds. The opinion does not decide whether those allegations were true or whether the proposed claims were legally sufficient.

Ruling

The court denied the application. It ruled that Idrobo could not bring a False Claims Act whistleblower action while proceeding without a lawyer, relying on a Second Circuit decision holding that whistleblower plaintiffs in these actions lack a personal interest in the claims and therefore may not proceed without counsel.

Because Idrobo could not proceed with the proposed False Claims Act action in that manner, the court stated that his related requests to seal the filing or proceed under a pseudonym had no merit. The court did not reach the merits of the alleged false certifications.

The court also stated that the deadline to file an amended complaint had passed. As a final courtesy, it granted Idrobo an extension, effective retroactively, until April 7, 2025. It warned that if he did not file an amended complaint by that date, the court would enter final judgment in the defendants’ favor as to all claims. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 84.