Perez v. Oxford University

Background

Eric Andrew Perez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Oxford University, several AstraZeneca entities, three doctors, Michael J. Missal, and Damian Williams under the False Claims Act. Perez alleged that the court and the Department of Justice had refused to investigate what he described as a billion-dollar fraud involving the study and funding of AstraZeneca. He sought declaratory relief and money damages.

Perez initially filed an unsigned application to proceed without paying filing fees. After the court directed him either to pay the fees or submit a completed application, he submitted an amended application. The court determined that he had sufficient assets to pay the fees, denied his request to proceed without paying them, and Perez paid the filing fees.

False Claims Act Claim

The False Claims Act imposes civil liability for knowingly presenting, or causing someone to present, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to the federal government. A private person may bring such a case for the United States in a type of action known as a qui tam action. The court explained that the United States remains the real party with the legal interest in recovering money, even though the private person litigates the case.

Under federal law, a person may represent himself without a lawyer only when litigating his own personal interest. Because a False Claims Act qui tam case is brought for and in the name of the United States, the court held that Perez could not pursue it without an attorney. The court therefore dismissed the False Claims Act claims without prejudice to Perez bringing them again in a separate civil action in which he is represented by an attorney.

Amendment and Other Motions

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that an amendment could not cure the defect: Perez could not bring this type of case without a lawyer. The order also states that Perez’s request for permission to add a defendant was denied as moot. In its conclusion, the court lists the motion to add a defendant, the motion to serve the complaint electronically, and the motion for a court electronic-filing username and password as denied. All other matters were terminated.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith because it would not present a nonfrivolous issue, and it denied Perez permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action because Perez could not bring claims on behalf of the United States without a lawyer. The dismissal was without prejudice as to bringing the claims again in a separate attorney-represented civil action.