United States of America, ex rel. Michael Flynn v. John Luman (“Jack”) Smith, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01252
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No.: 3:25-cv-01252-JES-DEB MICHAEL FLYNN, 12 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 v. (1) UNSEALING COMPLAINT; and 14 JOHN LUMAN (“JACK”) SMITH, et al., 15 (2) DISMISSING CASE Defendants. 16 [ECF Nos. 20, 21] 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On May 15, 2025, Relator Michael J. Flynn (“Relator”) filed a qui tam action 20 alleging violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) against several defendants. ECF No. 21 1. On October 27, 2025, the United States filed its Notice of Election to Decline 22 Intervention in this action. ECF No. 7. On October 30, 2025, Relator filed a Notice of 23 Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 24 ECF No. 9. On November 4, 2025, pursuant to the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), the United 25 States notified the Court that the Attorney General consents to the dismissal of this action 26 without prejudice to the rights of the United States. ECF No. 10. On November 5, 2025, 27 the Court issued an order requiring Relator to respond regarding the United States’ non- 28 1 opposition to the unsealing of the complaint. ECF No. 11. On November 18, 2025, Relator 2 filed a response to the Court’s order re: the unsealing of the complaint. ECF No. 13. On 3 January 8, 2026, the United States filed a response to Relator’s motion and an Amended 4 Notice of Consent to Dismissal. ECF Nos. 18, 19. Relator filed several additional 5 unsolicited motions, a reply to the United States’ response to Court’s Order re: the 6 unsealing of the complaint (ECF No. 15), a corrected reply (ECF No. 17), a motion for 7 entry of final judgment pursuant to FRCP 58(a) (ECF No. 20), and a request to grant 8 Relator’s FRCP 58(a) motion (ECF No. 21). The United States filed a statement regarding 9 Relator’s FRCP 58(a) motion (ECF No. 22) and Relator filed a reply (ECF No. 23). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 In his response regarding unsealing of the complaint, Relator states that he would 12 consent to the unsealing of the complaint subject to two conditions: (1) the scheduling and 13 transcribing of the statute-mandated hearing; and (2) the unsealing of all motions filed by 14 the United States and disclosure of all evidence and the investigation conducted by the 15 United States. ECF No. 13 at 2-8. 16 A. Request for Hearing 17 Relator argues that 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) mandates the Court conduct a hearing 18 prior to dismissing a qui tam action. Id. There is no such mandate in the statute. See 19 generally 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). As the United States correctly states, once the United 20 States files a notice that it has declined to intervene in a relator’s FCA complaint, the 21 complaint is to be unsealed. U. S. ex rel. Herrera v. Bon Secours Cottage Health Servs., 22 665 F. Supp. 2d 782, 784 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (“[T]here is nothing in the FCA evincing a 23 congressional intent to impose a permanent seal over all qui tam suits where a relator seeks 24 to voluntarily dismiss the action after the Government declines to intervene.”); U. S. v. 25 Creekside Hospice II, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-00167-APG-PAL, 2015 WL 9581743, at *7 (D. 26 Nev. Dec. 30, 2015) (“The FCA contemplates lifting the seal on the Relator’s complaint 27 once the government has decided whether or not to intervene.”). Unsealing of a qui tam 28 complaint after the United States declines to intervene does not require and is not 1 dependent on a relator’s agreement or consent. See U.S. ex rel. Love v. Teach for Am., Inc., 2 No. 17-cv-2062 (KBF), 2018 WL 1156103, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2018) (denying 3 relator’s request to permanently keep case under seal after Government declined to 4 intervene and observing that the “public has a right to know that this qui tam action was 5 filed, that the Government chose not to intervene, and that Relator subsequently moved to 6 dismiss the case.”). Thus, the Court unseals the complaint without the conditions sought 7 by Relator. 8 B. Request to Unseal All Motions and Disclosure of Evidence 9 Relator argues that the United States has not provided its reasons for declining 10 intervention and in his various motions argues that there is more than sufficient evidence 11 for the United States to bring claims against the named Defendants. ECF Nos. 13, 20, 21, 12 23.As the United States correctly responds, there is no statutory requirement for the United 13 States to provide its reasons for declining intervention. ECF No. 18 at 9. See U. S. ex rel. 14 Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, 650 F.3d 445, 457 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Given its limited time and 15 resources, the government cannot intervene in every FCA action nor can the government 16 pursue every meritorious FCA claim.”). 17 Finally, addressing Relator’s request to unseal, Congress recognized the need to 18 protect private communications between the Government and the court when it specifically 19 provided that the Government may move the court for extensions of the time during which 20 the complaint remains under seal for good cause and the motions “may be supported by 21 affidavits or other submissions in camera.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(3). Additionally, the FCA 22 notably does not provide for unsealing the Government’s applications for extension, even 23 though it specifically authorizes the unsealing of complaints. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2); 24 see also U. S. ex rel. Stephens v. Prabhu, No. CV-S-92-653-LDG (LRL), 1994 WL 761236, 25 at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 9, 1994) (“Neither that section nor any other provision of the FCA, 26 however, directs the court to unseal the motions for enlargement of time filed in camera.”); 27 U. S. ex rel. Coughlin v. IBM, 992 F. Supp. 137, 140 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[S]ection 3730 28 only provides for the unsealing of the complaint and no other section of the False Claims | || Act references the unsealing of any other documents filed with the court.”). Relator does 2 ||not cite any authority to support his argument to unseal the Government’s requests for 3 extensions. Thus, the Court does not order the unsealing of the Government’s requests for 4 || extension of time. 5 I. CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that this action is dismissed without 7 || prejudice as to Relator Michael J. Flynn and dismissed without prejudice as to the United 8 ||States. Further, the Court ORDERS that the Complaint, the United States’ Notice of 9 || Declination, and this Order be unsealed. All other contents of the Court’s file in this action 10 |}remain under seal and not be made public. The seal is also lifted as to all other matters 11 occurring in this action after the date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close 12 || the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: May 26, 2026 “4 we Se 4) 16 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28