Limpin v. Lyft, Inc., et al.
| MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN |
| LYFT, INC., BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Promise Health Plan, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CALL THE CAR, INC., SCAN HEALTH PLAN, SAFERIDE HEALTH, INC., ASCENDIUN, INC. and SCAN GROUP |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 26-4337 |
| July 8, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Qui Tam False Claims Act |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Consolidate filed by Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin. [Entered: 08/04/2026 10:57 AM] |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE to Order - Call for Response to Filing (DE 3) filed by Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin. [Entered: 08/04/2026 10:52 AM] |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin. [Entered: 07/23/2026 02:55 PM] |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin. [Entered: 07/23/2026 02:46 PM] |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin. [Entered: 07/20/2026 11:14 AM] |
| Filing 4 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin. [Entered: 07/20/2026 11:11 AM] |
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. This appeal may be appropriate for summary disposition because pro se litigators cannot become relators of False Claims Act qui tam actions. See Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (While [28 U.S.C. 1654] allows Stoner to prosecute his own actions in propria persona, that right is personal to him Stoner has no authority to prosecute an action in federal court on behalf of others than himself.). The district court thus did not err in dismissing Limpins qui tam action. See 9th Cir. R. 3-6(a) (standard for summary disposition); see also United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982). Within 21 days, appellant must file a statement explaining why the issues to be raised in this appeal are substantial enough to justify full briefing. If appellant does not do so, this appeal may be dismissed without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a statement, the real party in interest may file a response within 10 days. Briefing is stayed. [Entered: 07/17/2026 01:27 PM]
|
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 8/17/2026. For appeal no. 26-4337, 3:25-cv-01264-JES-MMP. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 07/08/2026 02:25 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:25-cv-01264-JES-MMP has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 26-4337 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 07/08/2026 02:21 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
