# United States of America v. Bara Infoware, Inc.

> District Court, N.D. California · February 4, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10062970

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** February 4, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10062970

## Opinion text

1

2

3
4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 OAKLAND DIVISION
10

11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Case No: 17-cv-06523 SBA
12 SIMRAT RANDHAWA,
ORDER 1) ADOPTING REPORT
13 Plaintiff, AND RECOMMENDATION AND
2) GRANTING REQUEST FOR
14 vs. DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND PARTIAL UNSEALING
15 BARA INFOWARE, INC., et al.,
Dkt. 21, 24
16 Defendants.

17
On January 13, 2020, Relator Simrat Randhawa (“Relator”) filed a Notice of
18
Dismissal [Without Prejudice] and Request for Partial Unsealing, and [Proposed] Order
19
Thereon in this qui tam action. Dkt. 21. Relator seeks to dismiss the action without
20
prejudice to her rights or the rights of the United States. Id. The United States consents to
21
the dismissal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). Id. It also requests that the Complaint,
22
Summons, Case Scheduling Order, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and anticipated Court
23
order dismissing the action, as well as any subsequent filings, be unsealed. Id.
24
On January 17, 2020, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a Report and
25
Recommendation Regarding Request for Dismissal (“R&R”). Dkt. 24. Magistrate Judge
26
Spero notes that, although Relator purports to file a “notice of dismissal,” a Court order is
27
required. Id. (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) (“The action may be dismissed only if the
1 court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for
2 consenting.”)). Finding no reason to deny the request for dismissal without prejudice and
3 partial unsealing, Magistrate Judge Spero recommends that the Court grant the same.
4 However, because a magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to dismiss an action without the
5 consent of all parties—including non-appearing defendants—Magistrate Judge Spero
6 ordered that the action be reassigned to a district judge. The deadline to file objections to
7 the R&R was January 31, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
8 On January 21, 2020, this Court issued an Order Regarding Request for Partial
9 Unsealing (“Unsealing Order”), proposing to enlarge the scope of the unsealing beyond
10 those filings identified by the United States. Dkt. 27. The Court identified the filings that
11 would remain under seal and invited the parties to file any objection to the proposal by
12 January 31, 2020. The Court advised that, absent any objection, the action would be
13 unsealed in the manner described in the Unsealing Order. Id.
14 To date, the Court has received no objections to the R&R or the Unsealing Order. In
15 the absence of a timely objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, “the
16 court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
17 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee notes to 1983
18 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see
19 also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“The
20 statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the
21 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not
22 otherwise.”). The Court has reviewed the record and finds no clear error.
23 Accordingly,
24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
25 1. The R&R (Dkt. 24) is ADOPTED and the Notice of Dismissal and Request for
26 Partial Unsealing (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED.
27 2. The action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the rights of Relator or the
1 3. The Clerk shall UNSEAL the action and all filings, except the following:
2 e Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to
3 Intervene, Dkt. 10;
4 e Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or
Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 11
5 e Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to
6 Intervene, Dkt. 12;
7 e Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or
Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 13;
8 e Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to
9 Intervene, Dkt. 14;
10 e Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or
Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 15;
e United States’ Notice Concerning Possible Breach of Seal, Dkt. 17;
12 e Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or Decline to
13 Intervene, Dkt. 18; and
14 e Order Granting Stipulation and Request for Enlargement of Time to Elect or
Decline to Intervene, Dkt. 19.
151! The Clerk shall SEAL the filings identified above.
16 4. This Order terminates the action, and the Clerk shall close the file.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 Dated: 02/04/20 Aeuntin I Gonatiing
19 AUNDRA BROWN ARMSTR
Senior United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10062970. Public record. Not legal advice.