The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and )
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ex rel. )
JANEEN CARRINGTON, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12-CV-1775 (KBJ)
)
HOUSE OF RUTH, ) FILED UNDER SEAL
)
Defendant. )
)
_________________________________________ )
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.) 1 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
1
The United States’ notice of consent to dismissal provided that the District of Columbia similarly consented to
dismissal without prejudice to the District of Columbia. (ECF No. 5.)
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.
Date: July 10, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge