DOW et al v. HC2, INC., et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
ROSEMARIE A. DOW,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action No. 21-1197 (JDB)
HC2, INC., dba HIRE COUNSEL,
and
PAE LABAT-ANDERSON, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In the Spring of 2021, Dow brought suit on behalf of the United States against two litigation
support service companies, alleging violations of the False Claims Act. Compl. [ECF No. 3]. The
government investigated, and in March of 2025, declined to intervene. Gov’t Notice of
Nonintervention [ECF No. 22]. Dow’s counsel withdrew shortly thereafter. Then, in the fall of
2025, the Court held that Dow could not proceed pro se, citing concerns about adequate
representation of the United States. See Oct. 27, 2025, Mem. Op. & Ord. [ECF No. 45] at 3; see
also United States ex rel. Feliciano v. Ardoin, 127 F.4th 382, 383–84 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
The Court gave Dow until November 26, 2025, to obtain new counsel, see Oct. 27, 2025,
Mem. Op. & Ord. at 5, and subsequently extended that deadline until January 19, 2026, see Min.
Ord. Dated December 5, 2025. On January 20, 2026, Dow again moved for an extension; this
time, Defendant HC2, Inc. opposed the motion. Pl.’s Second Ext. Mot. [ECF No. 47]; Def.’s First
Opp’n [ECF No. 49]. The Court again granted Dow’s motion and extended the deadline to obtain
counsel until February 27, 2026, but warned that barring extraordinary circumstances, no further
Case 1:21-cv-01197-JDB Document 52 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
extensions would be granted. See Min. Ord. Dated Jan. 23, 2026. To date, Dow has not hired new
counsel.
On February 27, 2026, Dow moved for a third extension of time to obtain counsel. Pl.’s
Third Ext. Mot. [ECF No. 50]. In support of her motion, Dow cites her continued efforts to find
counsel, id. at 6–7, as well as her submission to the Judicial Council of this circuit seeking the
undersigned’s recusal, id. at 7–8. Defendant HC2, Inc. again opposes the motion. Def.’s Second
Opp’n [ECF No. 51].
District courts possess inherent authority to manage their dockets “so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–631
(1962); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Included in this authority is the power to set and enforce
litigation deadlines. See In re Fannie Mae Sec. Litig., 552 F.3d 814, 822 (D.C. Cir. 2009). If a
party requests the extension of a court ordered deadline “‘before the original time or its extension
expires,’ then the court may extend the deadline ‘for good cause.’” Pinson v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,
Civ. A. No. 18-486 (RC), 2021 WL 3418954, at *6 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b)(1)(A)). “What constitutes good cause necessarily varies with the circumstances of each
case.” See Watt v. All Clear Bus. Sols., LLC, 840 F. Supp. 2d 324, 326 (D.D.C. 2012). Here, the
standard is high because Dow has already received four months to find new counsel, been granted
two extensions of time, and been warned that barring extraordinary circumstances, no further
extensions would be granted.
Neither of Dow’s cited reasons for further extending her deadline to obtain counsel
establish good cause in these circumstances. First, Dow attests that she continues to search for a
lawyer and has reached out to firms and public interest organizations she thinks might represent
her. Pl.’s Third Ext. Mot. at 6. But all the firms she has reached out to have declined to represent
Case 1:21-cv-01197-JDB Document 52 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
her and the public interest organizations have not responded. Id. Crucially, Dow provides no
support for the proposition that the situation will materially change if the Court were to grant her
a third extension.
Dow’s Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D) submission does not supply good cause
either. Parties may not leverage the JC&D process to prolong litigation through recusal demands
that must be brought in the district court. Cf. Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings art. I
§ 3 (allegations “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling . . . including a
failure to recuse, without more” are not cognizable under the JC&D Act); see also In re Complaint
of Judicial Misconduct, No. DC-22-90037, at 3 (D.C. Cir. 2023). And in any event, Dow did not
comply with the D.C. Circuit’s page limit for submitting a Rule 6 complaint, see D.C. Circuit
Resp. [ECF No. 50-1] at 32, so the Circuit will not respond to her submission unless the Chief
Judge elects to rely on it to identify a complaint, see JC&D Rules 5, 8 & 11, and Dow has supplied
no evidence that this is likely to occur.
In short, Dow has not shown the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would constitute
good cause to grant her a third extension of time to obtain counsel. The Court further finds that
Dow has failed to prosecute this suit by timely hiring counsel. As a result, dismissal could be
appropriate. See Link, 370 U.S. at 629; D.D.C. Local Civil Rule 83.23; United States ex rel.
Florence v. Envision Healthcare, Civ. A. No. 19-493, 2021 WL 6804139, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. May
18, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. United States v. Envision Healthcare &
KKK & Co., Civ. A. No. 19-00493, 2021 WL 6804138 (M.D. Tenn. June 14, 2021) (denying FCA
plaintiffs a third extension of time to find counsel and dismissing the case without prejudice); Keith
v. Wis. Off. of Sec’y of State, No. 24-CV-1015-JPS, 2025 WL 69180, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 10,
Case 1:21-cv-01197-JDB Document 52 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
2025) (dismissing FCA suit without prejudice following repeated and unheeded warnings to the
plaintiff to find counsel).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that [50] Dow’s motion for a third extension of time
to obtain counsel is DENIED; it is further ORDERED that by not later than March 23, 2026, the
Government shall file a position statement with the Court addressing whether it consents to
dismissal of this suit. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1).
SO ORDERED.
/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Dated: March 9, 2026
Case 1:21-cv-01197-JDB Document 52 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 4