United States of America et al v. Pacific Retirement Services, Inc. et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Northern District United States of America et al v. Pacific Retirement Services, Inc. et al

United States of America et al v. Pacific Retirement Services, Inc. et al

Case Number:	3:2016cv00889
Filed:	August 29, 2019
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office:	San Francisco Office
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutes: False Claims Act
Cause of Action:	31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 4, 2019	Filing 74 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT. As discussed in more detail in the attached order, as the relators have not retained new counsel, they cannot proceed with this case. The court therefore dismisses the case without prejudice to the government. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on October 4, 2019. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2019)
August 29, 2019	Filing 71 ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 61 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. As set forth in the attached order, the court grants Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP ("CPM")'s motion to withdraw as counsel for relators Michael and Karyl McNall. The court orders CPM to continue to serve the McNalls with all papers until the McNalls file a substitution of counsel. The court specifically orders CPM to serve a copy of this order on the McNalls and to file proof of service with the cour t within one week.The court stays this case until September 30, 2019 to give the McNalls an additional opportunity to retain new counsel. If the McNalls fail to retain new counsel on or before the expiration of the stay, the court intends to dismiss this case without prejudice to the government.The court extends the defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint from October 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019.(lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2019)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 4, 2019

Filing 74 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT. As discussed in more detail in the attached order, as the relators have not retained new counsel, they cannot proceed with this case. The court therefore dismisses the case without prejudice to the government. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on October 4, 2019. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2019)

August 29, 2019

Filing 71 ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 61 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. As set forth in the attached order, the court grants Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP ("CPM")'s motion to withdraw as counsel for relators Michael and Karyl McNall. The court orders CPM to continue to serve the McNalls with all papers until the McNalls file a substitution of counsel. The court specifically orders CPM to serve a copy of this order on the McNalls and to file proof of service with the cour t within one week.The court stays this case until September 30, 2019 to give the McNalls an additional opportunity to retain new counsel. If the McNalls fail to retain new counsel on or before the expiration of the stay, the court intends to dismiss this case without prejudice to the government.The court extends the defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint from October 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019.(lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2019)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States of America et al v. Pacific Retirement Services, Inc. et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?