The United States of America ex rel. Benjamin J. Ashmore v. CGI GROUP
The United States of America ex rel. Benjamin J. Ashmore, Sr. v. CGI GROUP, INC. et.al.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:15-cv-04277
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ashmore v. CGI Group, Judge Abrams dismissed the False Claims Act case without prejudice because Ashmore did not obtain required counsel.
The dismissal affected Benjamin J. Ashmore, Sr.’s False Claims Act action against CGI GROUP, INC., and the other defendants. The action was dismissed without prejudice because Ashmore did not obtain counsel, and the order did not resolve the underlying allegations.
What happened
The United States of America ex rel. Benjamin J. Ashmore, Sr. v. CGI GROUP, INC., et al. was a lawsuit under the False Claims Act. The United States declined to join the case, and the court later unsealed the complaint and directed Ashmore either to serve it or voluntarily dismiss the action.
After Ashmore’s lawyer withdrew, the court gave him three stays to find new counsel. No lawyer entered an appearance. Ashmore argued that his legal education and possible temporary practice authorization in New Jersey should allow him to proceed, but he did not identify a supervising attorney or show that he met the authorization’s requirements.
Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Ashmore failed to obtain counsel and comply with the court’s orders. The clerk was directed to close the case and terminate the two pending letter motions.
The detailed version
- The United States of America ex rel. Benjamin J. Ashmore v. CGI GROUP · No. 1:15-cv-04277
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 14, 2020
Background
Benjamin J. Ashmore, Sr., acting as the relator, filed this lawsuit under the False Claims Act through retained counsel. The United States declined to intervene, meaning it chose not to join the action. The court then unsealed the complaint and directed Ashmore either to serve it or voluntarily dismiss it.
Ashmore’s counsel later received permission to withdraw. The court stayed the case and gave Ashmore time to obtain new counsel, ultimately granting three stays. The final order warned that the case would be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if new counsel did not enter an appearance by April 10, 2020. No attorney entered an appearance.
Arguments
Ashmore asked the court not to require licensed counsel, stating that he worked in the legal field and was a third-year Rutgers Law School student expected to graduate in May 2020. He also relied on an April 6, 2020 New Jersey Supreme Court order concerning temporary supervised practice by certain law-school graduates.
CGI opposed the request and sought dismissal under Rule 41(b). CGI argued that a nonlawyer could not proceed without counsel in a False Claims Act qui tam action. The court noted that the New Jersey order required, among other things, a supervising attorney whose name and bar identification would appear on filings and certification by the New Jersey Committee on Character. Ashmore had not identified a supervising attorney, shown that one had agreed to supervise him, or established that he had received the required certification.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b). That rule permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with the rules or a court order. The court relied on Ashmore’s failure to secure counsel after three stays and his failure to comply with the court’s warnings and deadlines. It also stated that a person proceeding without a lawyer may not prosecute a False Claims Act qui tam action and that Ashmore had not met the requirements for supervised practice under the New Jersey order.
The order did not decide whether the False Claims Act allegations had merit. The clerk was directed to close the case and terminate the letter motions at Dockets 77 and 79.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.