Q: Provide specifics

A: In the context of qui tam FCA cases, there are several precedents where the plaintiff was refused to bring a case in pro per. For instance, in the case of United States ex rel. Rogers v. County of Sacramento, the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice because the physician was appearing pro se. The physician could not proceed pro se as a relator in a qui tam action under either the federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act, and the physician was not asserting any claims that were personal to him. See United States ex rel. Rogers v. County of Sacramento.

Similarly, in the case of United States ex rel. Darian v. Accent Builders, Inc., the court expressed concerns about the pro se litigant's lack of skill in cases as complicated as qui tam actions. The court noted that the conduct of litigation by a non-lawyer creates unusual burdens not only for the party he represents but also for his adversaries and the court . See United States ex rel. Darian v. Accent Builders, Inc.

Another case, United States ex rel. Schwartz v. TRW Inc., also concluded that a non-attorney could not represent the real party in interest before the court. Because the employee was admittedly not a member of any bar, she could not represent the real party in interest in a qui tam action, the United States. This was so even though the United States did not intervene in the action. See United States ex rel. Schwartz v. TRW Inc.

Regarding the specific debates relevant to disallowing a plaintiff to bring in pro per qui tam action, the California Forms Of Pleading and Practice - Annotated states that if the state, political subdivision, or qui tam plaintiff prevails in or settles an action initiated by the qui tam plaintiff, the qui tam plaintiff receives an amount for reasonable expenses that the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. See § 468.24 Costs and Attorney’s Fees.

Moreover, the Private Attorneys General Act in California: Defending against PAGA Claims explains that PAGA actions are a form of qui tam actions. If a PAGA action is brought as a class action, the plaintiff must meet all the requirements of a class action, including that the named plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel are able to adequately represent the class, as well as commonality, numerosity, and typicality. See Private Attorneys General Act in California: Defending against PAGA Claims.