Barati v. State

Citation198 So.3d 69
Decision Date23 February 2016
Docket NumberNo. 1D15–213.,1D15–213.
Parties Zoltan BARATI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Motorola, Inc., and Morphotrak, Inc., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

198 So.3d 69

Zoltan BARATI, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Motorola, Inc., and Morphotrak, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D15–213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 23, 2016.


David W. Moyé, Moyé Law Firm, Tallahassee; Gary M. Farmer, Jr. and Gary M. Farmer, Sr. of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Russell S. Kent, Special Counsel, William E. Foster, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee State of Florida.

198 So.3d 71

THOMAS, J.

In this qui tam proceeding filed under the Florida False Claims Act (FCA), we are presented with a question of first impression,1 to wit: Does the Attorney General possess the requisite legal authority to dismiss a pending qui tam action notwithstanding her previous decision to decline to intervene in the action? The Attorney General asserts that a qui tam action is strictly statutory in nature, the State is the real party in interest, and the State possesses the substantive right to dismiss this statutory cause of action at any time during the litigation. To hold otherwise, the State argues, would violate organic law prohibiting either the legislative or judicial branches from interfering in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the executive branch to decide that dismissing a qui tam claim in state court is properly within the public interest of the State of Florida.

Appellant (relator) argues that under the “public policies embedded in the False Claims Act” and the legislative history of the Act, the relator who litigates a qui tam action must be provided a court hearing to challenge the Attorney General's voluntary dismissal. To allow the Attorney General to dismiss any qui tam action, regardless of prior participation by the State, and regardless of the relator's investment of resources in the litigation, would “severely undermine[ ]” the “False Claims Act's role in combatting fraud against the government,” according to the relator.

We hold that the Attorney General possesses the plenary authority to unilaterally dismiss a qui tam action, regardless of the State's decision to decline to previously intervene in the litigation. We reach this conclusion based on four reasons: First, based on our analysis of the plain language of the statute, we conclude that the Legislature intended to confer this substantive authority to the Attorney General; second, based on our review of the relevant case law interpreting the very similar Federal False Claims Act, we find ample support for our reasoning; third, based on Florida's strict separation of powers mandated in Florida's organic law under Article II, section three, we reason that to interpret the statute to allow a relator to challenge the Attorney General's decision would place the relevant statute in constitutional jeopardy; and fourth, and finally, we conclude that the Attorney General's constitutional authority under Article IV, section four of the Florida Constitution, mandates that her office is accorded the unilateral authority to dismiss a qui tam action, without challenge from a relator, absent any allegation of fraud not present here. In fine, we hold that the authority of the Attorney General to voluntarily dismiss the qui tam action is a substantive right firmly grounded on statutory and state-constitutional principles.

Factual and Procedural Background

As described in State v. Barati, 150 So.3d 810, 811–12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014),

198 So.3d 72

which did not reach the merits of the question presented here, the following history is useful:

In September 2009, Barati filed a qui tam action against Motorola, Inc., pursuant to the Florida False Claims Act, section 68.081 et seq., Florida Statutes....

The Florida False Claims Act authorizes a private person or the State to initiate a civil action against a person or company who knowingly presents a false claim to the State for payment. The private citizen who brings an action, i.e., the “relator,” sues on behalf of himself and the State. Such an action is called a qui tam action from the Latin phrase: “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur.” Black's Law Dictionary translates the phrase as: “who as well for the king as for himself sues in this matter.” ...

After being served a copy of the qui tam complaint and relevant materials, the State of Florida conducted an investigation, pursuant to section 68.083(3), Florida Statutes. The State declined to join the qui tam action, which Barati thereafter prosecuted for approximately three and a half years. Without formally intervening in the cause, the Attorney General, on behalf of the State, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action on July 18, 2013. The State asserted in its notice that it had the unilateral right to dismiss the action on authority of section 68.084(2)(a), notwithstanding any objections that Barati may have.

Barati thereafter moved to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal arguing inter alia that dismissal did not occur automatically, as the State was suggesting.

Following our denial of the Attorney General's petition for writ of prohibition, the lower court ruled that the “Attorney General had the authority to file a voluntary dismissal notwithstanding any objections of the Relator pursuant to Section 68.084(2), Florida Statutes.” By our holding today, we affirm that ruling.

Analysis

1. The Plain Language of the Statute

Our standard of review here is de novo, as we address a pure question of law. Myers v. State, 866 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

As we are bound to interpret the statute as a whole, we provide the following relevant text of the 2009 Florida False Claims Act, emphasizing provisions that describe the State's overarching legislative policy in authorizing qui tam actions:

68. 082 False Claims against the state; ... liability.

.....

(2) Any person who:

(a) Knowingly presents or causes to be presented ... a false or fraudulent for payment or approval;

....

(g) .... is liable to the state for a civil penalty ... and for treble the amount of damages the agency sustains because of the act or omission of that person.

(3) The court may reduce the treble damages ... in which case the court shall award no less than 2 times the amount of damages sustained by the agency because of the act of the person....

68.083 Civil Actions for false claims.

(1) The department [of Legal Affairs] may diligently investigate a violation under s. 68.082 .... [T]he department may bring a civil action under the Florida False Claims Act against the person
198 So.3d 73
[who has allegedly violated s. 68.082] ....

(2) A person may bring a civil action for a violation of s. 68.082 for the person and for the affected agency. Civil actions instituted under this act shall be governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and shall be brought in the name of the State of Florida. Prior to the court unsealing the complaint under subsection (3), the action may be voluntarily dismissed by the person bringing the action only if the department gives written consent to the dismissal and its reasons for such consent.

....

(7) When a person files an action ... no person other than the department on behalf of the state may intervene ... under this act ....

68.084 Rights of the parties in civil actions.

(1) If the department, on behalf of the state, proceeds with the action, it has the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action, and is not bound by any act of the person bringing the action. The person bringing the action has the right to continue as a party to the action, subject to the limitations specified in subsection (2).

(2)(a) The department may voluntarily dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action.[2 ]

(b) Subject to s. 17.04, nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the authority of the department or the qui tam plaintiff to compromise a claim brought in a complaint filed under this act if the court determines, after a hearing, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances.

(c) Upon a showing by the department that unrestricted participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would interfere with or unduly delay the department's prosecution of the case, or would be repetitious, irrelevant, or for purposes of harassment, the court may, in its discretion, impose limitations on the person's participation, including, but not limited to:

1. Limiting the number of witnesses the person may call;
198 So.3d 74
2. Limiting the length of the testimony of the person's

witnesses;

3. Limiting the person's cross-examination of witnesses; or

4. Otherwise limiting the participation by the person in the litigation.

(d) Upon a showing by the defendant that unrestricted participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would be for purposes of harassment or would cause the defendant undue burden or unnecessary expense, the court may limit the participation by the person in the litigation.

(3) If the department elects not to proceed with the action, the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Barati v. Fla. Attorney Gen. Pamela Jo Bondi, & Motorola Solutions, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • August 15, 2018
    ...to dismiss the action on authority of section 68.084(2)(a), notwithstanding any objections that Barati may have.Barati v. State, 198 So. 3d 69, 71-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), review denied, No. SC16-834, 2016 WL 4429843 (Fla. Aug. 22, 2016), and cert. denied sub nom. Barati v. Fla., 137 S. Ct. ......
  • Barati v. Florida Attorney General
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 12, 2021
    ...that the State had not intervened in the action and that a relator should be provided an opportunity to challenge such a dismissal. Barati II, 198 So.3d at 71. The trial court ruled that it had been divested of jurisdiction by the notice of dismissal, and the First DCA affirmed, holding as ......
  • United States ex rel. Schultz v. Naples Heart Rhythm Specialists, P.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • April 13, 2020
    ...initiate a civil action against a person or company who knowingly presents a false claim to the State for payment." Barati v. State, 198 So. 3d 69, 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). The Florida False Claims Act "mirrors the federal False Claims Act and is subject to the same pleading standard" noted ......
  • Corcoran v. Geffin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 28, 2018
    ...in Florida. "The Florida Constitution imposes a strict, explicit and textual separation of powers requirement ...." Barati v. State , 198 So.3d 69, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). "It would be hard to compose a more demanding requirement in organic law" than Florida's separation of powers. Id. Thus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT