634 F. App'x 192
9th Cir.2015Background
- Relator Steven Mateski filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act; the Government moved to dismiss under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).
- Government asserted two official purposes for dismissal: (1) to avoid disclosure of classified information, and (2) to conserve government resources.
- The district court granted the Government’s motion; the court relied on a classified submission from the Government in support of dismissal.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit applied the two-step Sequoia Orange test: Government must identify valid purposes and show a rational relationship between dismissal and those purposes; if met, burden shifts to relator to show dismissal is fraudulent, arbitrary and capricious, or illegal.
- Mateski argued the redacted/classified material was already public and that dismissal violated his due process and other rights; he also sought a hearing.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded the Government met its burden (national security/classification concerns suffice), Mateski failed to rebut with a colorable showing, and he had no protected property or liberty interest triggering additional process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government can dismiss a qui tam action under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) when classified information is implicated | Mateski: Dismissal improper because the allegedly classified information is already public and the case is meritorious | Government: Dismissal justified to prevent disclosure of classified information and to conserve resources; classification decisions entitled to deference | Held: Government met Sequoia Orange two-step test; dismissal rationally related to preventing disclosure; relator failed to show dismissal was fraudulent/arbitrary/illegal |
| Whether relator was entitled to a hearing before dismissal | Mateski: Requested hearing to challenge dismissal and classification | Government: Hearing unnecessary because relator did not present a colorable claim that dismissal was unreasonable or arbitrary | Held: No hearing required; relator did not meet the Sequoia Orange showing necessary to obtain a hearing |
| Whether the Government must defer to relator’s merit-based objections to dismissal | Mateski: Case is meritorious, so dismissal should not be allowed | Government: Statute permits dismissal over relator’s objections regardless of merit | Held: Merits do not bar dismissal; precedent allows dismissal even for meritorious claims |
| Whether dismissal violated procedural due process or other constitutional rights | Mateski: Dismissal deprived him of property/liberty interest and due process protections | Government: The underlying claim belongs to the Government; relator received notice and opportunity to oppose | Held: No protected property or liberty interest shown; due process satisfied by notice and opportunity to be heard; other constitutional claims not preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.) (two-step test for government dismissal under § 3730(c)(2)(A))
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) (deference to agency classification determinations to protect national security)
- Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) (broad agency discretion to protect classified information and control access)
- Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.) (relator’s interest in qui tam recovery is limited; claim belongs to Government)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (due process requires a protected liberty or property interest as a threshold inquiry)