United States District Court, District of Columbia
July 10, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ex rel. JANEEN CARRINGTON, Plaintiffs,
HOUSE OF RUTH, Defendant
For JANEEN CARRINGTON, United States of America and District of Columbia ex rel, Plaintiff: David Lawrence Scher, LEAD ATTORNEY, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, P.C., Washington, DC.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Interested Party: Jennifer A. Short, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Civil Division, Washington, DC.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Dismissing the Case Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) without Prejudice to the United States
On November 11, 2012, the plaintiff brought this action on behalf of the United States and the District of Columbia, seeking to recover damages arising from false claims made by the defendants in violation of the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, and the District of Columbia False Claims Act, D.C. Code § § 2-381.01. On June 27, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 4.)
Such an action may only be dismissed if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). On June 27, 2013, the United States gave its consent to the dismissal of the action, but it failed to articulate its reasons for consenting as required by the statute. (ECF No. 5.)  Accordingly, on July 1, 2013, the court ordered the United States to show cause why the case should be dismissed. ( See Minute Order of July 1, 2013.) On July 8, 2013, the United States responded that, along with the District of Columbia, it had investigated the plaintiff's allegations and deemed that it was not in the interest of the government to devote resources to pursue the litigation and informed plaintiff's counsel that it planned to decline to intervene in the matter. (U.S. Resp. to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 7, at 1-2.)
Having now reviewed and considered plaintiff's voluntary dismissal and the government's reasons for consenting to the dismissal, the court concludes that the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) have been satisfied. Accordingly, the case is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the United States or the District of Columbia. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the case is dismissed.