United States of America, by and through qui tam relator, Ray Sanchez Topasna v. Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (GHURA)
Filing
111
Decision and Order denying Defendant Smith's 106 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Designated Judge Ramona V. Manglona on 7/15/2024. (kbma)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
5
6
7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
RAY SANCHEZ TOPASNA,
Plaintiff,
8
11
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT SMITH’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
9
10
Case No. 1:15-cv-00040
GUAM HOUSING AND URBAN
RENEWAL AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
I.
14
Pending before the Court is Defendant Mark S. Smith’s motion to dismiss, in whole or in
15
part, this action based on Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (“Motion,” ECF No.
16
106) to which Plaintiff the United States of America (“the Government”) filed an opposition
17
(“Opposition,” ECF No. 109). To date, Smith has not filed a reply. For the reasons detailed herein,
18
the Court DENIES Smith’s motion to dismiss.
INTRODUCTION
19
II.
20
In 2015, qui tam Relator Ray Sanchez Topasna (“Relator” or “Topasna”) filed his
21
complaint in this matter against Defendant Smith and others pursuant to the False Claims Act
22
(“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., premised upon Defendant Smith receiving Federal Section 8
23
housing payments as a landlord from Defendant Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority
24
(“GHURA”) despite his conflict as counsel for GHURA. (See Relator Complaint 3-7, ECF No. 1.)
FACTS
1
1
Topasna sought recovery of federal money that GHURA paid Smith during the time Smith was
2
GHURA’s legal counsel including “both the monies he was paid for his work as legal counsel and
3
as a landlord through the Section 8 low income housing program.” (Id. at 11.) Additionally,
4
Topasna requested reinstatement to his former position as Executive Director of GHURA, back
5
pay, and special damages for his retaliatory termination. (Id. at 12.) For four years, the case was
6
sealed and the Government obtained extensions of its deadline to file its notice of election on
7
intervention. (See ECF No. 52.) On August 22, 2019, the Government filed its Notice of Election
8
to Intervene in Part and to Decline in Part. (ECF No. 53.) In particular, the Government sought to
9
“intervene in that part of the [R]elator’s Complaint which alleges misconduct surrounding the
10
actions of Defendant Mark S. Smith.” (Id. at 2.) The Government declined to intervene on the
11
allegations not related to Defendant Smith. (Id.) The United States then filed a complaint in
12
intervention (“U.S. Complaint,” ECF No. 55) against Smith premised upon the prohibition of
13
Smith receiving Section 8 housing payments while counsel for GHURA, and Smith’s attempts at
14
concealing the conflict. (See U.S. Compl. 3-7, 10-14.) The Government did not intervene as to
15
Topasna’s claim of retaliation. (See U.S. Compl.) After the U.S. Complaint was filed, Topasna
16
filed an Amended Complaint against GHURA and its six board members in their official capacity
17
seeking monies paid to Defendant Smith by Defendant GHURA during the time Defendant Smith
18
was legal counsel for Defendant GHURA, and reinstatement by Defendant GHURA to his former
19
position as GHURA Executive Director. (Relator Am. Compl. 1-2, 5, ECF No. 56.)
20
In 2019, the Court stayed the matter pending the resolution of the related criminal matter.
21
(See ECF No. 74). After the stay was lifted in September 2023 (ECF No. 92), counsel for Topasna
22
filed a Suggestion of Death of Topasna pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)
23
specifying that Topasna passed on February 20, 2022. (ECF No. 93).
24
//
2
1
III.
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) provides that:
3
(1) Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. If a party dies and the claim is
not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for
substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent's successor or
representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement
noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LEGAL STANDARD
(2) Continuation Among the Remaining Parties. After a party's death, if the right
sought to be enforced survives only to or against the remaining parties, the action
does not abate, but proceeds in favor of or against the remaining parties. The death
should be noted on the record.
Generally, courts apply a uniform federal law to determine whether a federal claim
survives. Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
“[U]nder federal common law, federal claims typically survive a decedent’s death if they are
remedial in nature and not penal.” Id. at 1056-57 (citations omitted).
IV.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Smith moves for the dismissal of this qui tam action as to all Plaintiffs. (Mot.
8.) Smith first asserts that, if the qui tam claims against him are remedial and survive Topasna’s
death, the case should be dismissed because the United States failed to substitute in place of
Topasna as required per Rule 25((a)(1). (Id. at 4.) He then argues that the FCA claims are punitive
such that the FCA claims do not survive Topasna’s death. (Mot. 8.) The Court addresses each
argument in turn.
First, the Government need not file a motion for substitution pursuant to Rule 25(a) as it
has already intervened in this matter when the Relator was still alive. Because the Government
intervened, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c) dictates that “it shall have the primary responsibility for
prosecuting the action, and shall not be bound by an act of the person bringing the action.” The
Government’s intervention “reduce[s] substantially the relator’s role.” United States v. Acad.
3
1
Mortg. Corp., 968 F.3d 996, 1008 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). For example, the Government
2
may dismiss and settle the action “notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the
3
action.” § 3730(c). Here, because the Government filed its complaint and intervened in this action
4
as to Smith’s purported fraud, it bears primary responsibility for prosecuting this action such that
5
it need not file a motion for substitution after Topasna’s death to pursue the claims against Smith. 1
6
It would be illogical to require the Government to file a motion for substitution upon Topasna’s
7
death when § 3730(c) permits it to settle and dismiss the case over his objections. Therefore, the
8
Court rejects Smith’s Rule 25(a) substitution argument.
9
Second, Smith is mistaken as the FCA claim against him by the United States survives the
10
death of Topasna. “The only court of appeals and the overwhelming majority of district courts to
11
have considered the question have concluded” that “[a] claim under the FCA survives the death of
12
the relator.” United States ex rel. Switzer v. Wood, No. CV 18-08118, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13
180477, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2023) (first citing United States v. NEC Corp., 11 F.3d 136, 137-
14
39 (11th Cir. 1993); and then citing United States ex rel. Hood v. Satory Global, Inc., 946 F. Supp.
15
2d 69, 81 (D.D.C. 2013)); accord United States ex rel. Colucci v. Beth Isr. Med. Ctr., 603 F. Supp.
16
2d 677, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Accordingly, I hold that FCA claims brought under the qui tam
17
provision of the statute are not extinguished with the relator’s death.”). 2 As the court in Colucci
18
rationalized, “(1) damages for FCA claims, while both punitive and remedial in nature, serve a
19
primarily remedial purpose; and (2) the purpose of the FCA is best served by allowing qui tam
20
actions to survive the death of the relator.” Colucci, 603 F. Supp. at 681. Smith overwhelmingly
21
22
23
24
Topasna’s claim of retaliation against GHURA and its Board of Directors is not at issue because the Government
did not intervene as to that claim. Moreover, GHURA and Topasna’s estate are in the midst of negotiating settlement
of the claims against GHURA. (See GHURA’s Not. Withdrawal 2, ECF No. 108.)
1
Smith cited to Colucci (Mot. 6), but evidently failed to grasp the court’s “hold[ing] that qui tam actions brought
under the FCA survive the death of the relator” Colucci, 603 F. Supp. 2d at 681.
2
4
1
relies upon United States ex rel. Harrington v. Sisters of Providence in Oregon, 209 F. Supp. 2d
2
1085 (D. Ore. 2002) for the proposition that the FCA claims are punitive and upon the death of the
3
relator, the qui tam action had to be dismissed. (Mot. 6-8.) First, the Court notes that in Harrington,
4
the United States declined to intervene. United States ex rel. Harrington v. Sisters of Providence
5
in Or., No. CIV.98-1587-JO, 2001 WL 34041791, at *1 (D. Ore. Dec. 21, 2021.) Therefore, only
6
the relator was the plaintiff in that case. Here, the United States intervened and filed its on
7
complaint against Smith. Second, the undersigned agrees with the court in Switzer that declined to
8
follow the minority position of Harrington. See Switzer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180477, at *4. In
9
addition to other courts disagreeing with Harrington, the Supreme Court has subsequently
10
recognized “‘that the FCA serves dual punitive and remedial purposes,’ thus undermining the
11
reasoning of Harrington.” Id. (first quoting Hood, 946 F. Supp. 2d at 81; and then quoting United
12
States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119, 131 (2003)). Based on the overwhelming case law, the Court
13
joins many others in concluding that the FCA claim survives the death of the relator.
14
V.
15
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Smith’s motion to dismiss as the United States
16
had already intervened in the action and filed its own complaint against Defendant Smith, and
17
because the claims against Smith survive Topasna’s death.
18
CONCLUSION
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of July 2024.
19
20
21
______________________________________
RAMONA V. MANGLONA
Designated Judge
22
23
24
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
