Thorson v. Hawaii Public Housing Authority et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
LAURIE THORSON, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA EX REL. LAURIE THORSON;
Plaintiff,
vs.
HAWAII PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY,
HAKIM OUANSAFI, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR; RYAN AKAMINE, CHIEF
COMPLIANCE OFFICER; LYLE
MATSUURA, SUPERVISOR IV; 	HAWAII
PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, ROBERT HALL,
CHAIR; BETTY LOU LARSON, VICE
CHAIR; SUZAN KUNZ, SECRETARY;
RYAN YAMANE, DHS DIRECTOR;
JOSEPH CAMPOSII, DHS ASST.
DIRECTOR; SCOTT GLENN, LISA ANNE
DARCY, ROY KATSUDA, CHRISTYL
NAGAO, TODD TANIGUCHI, 	CITY &
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, PHA:H1003;
ANTON KRUCKY, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR; 	KAUAI COUNTY HOUSING
AGENCY, PHA: H1005; AND ADAM
ROVERSI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR;
Defendants.
CIV. NO. 25-00491 LEK-WRP
ORDER: DISMISSING RELATOR’S FALSE CLAIMS ACT QUI TAM COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING RELATOR’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT;
AND DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE TO CLOSE THE CASE
On November 21, 2025, pro se Relator Laurie Thorson
(“Thorson”) filed a False Claims Act qui tam Complaint
(“Complaint”) under seal pursuant to Title 31 United States Code
Section 3730(b)(2), and an Application to Proceed in District 2
Case 1:25-cv-00491-LEK-WRP Document 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

2
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). [Dkt.
nos. 1, 3.] The Complaint was unsealed on January 30, 2026
pursuant to an entering order filed by the Court. [Dkt. no. 8.]
The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice,
provided Thorson an opportunity to file an amended complaint by
March 5, 2026, and reserved ruling on the Application. See Order
Dismissing Relator’s False Claims Act Qui Tam Complaint with
Leave to Amend; and Reserving Ruling on Thorson’s Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed
2/2/26 (dkt. no. 9) (“2/2 Order”), at 8-9. The Court warned
Thorson that, if she failed to file an amended complaint by
March 5, 2026, the Complaint would be dismissed with prejudice
and the instant action would be closed. See id. at 8.
On February 26, 2026, Thorson filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (“2/26
Notice”). [Dkt. no. 10.] The 2/2 Order, however, dismissed the
Complaint without prejudice. See 2/2 Order at 8. In other words,
there is nothing for Thorson to voluntarily dismiss. The Court
therefore liberally construes the 2/26 Notice as a notice
notifying the Court that Thorson does not intend to file an
amended complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam).
The Court has the discretion to dismiss the Complaint
with prejudice and close the case. See Yourish v. Cal.
Case 1:25-cv-00491-LEK-WRP Document 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

3
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with a minute order setting forth
the deadline to file the amended complaint gave the district
court the discretion to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b)), 1 superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized
in Russel v. United States, Case No.: 21cv1029-LL-MDD, 2023 WL
2919319, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023). After weighing the
five dismissal factors set forth in Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc.,
648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011), 2 the Court finds that the
public interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation
and the Court’s interest in managing the docket strongly
outweigh the policy favoring disposition of Thorson’s claims on
the merits. Moreover, the defendants will not be prejudiced by
the closure of the case because Thorson did not serve the
1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states, in pertinent
part: “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with
these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss
the action or any claim against it.”
2 The Ninth Circuit has
identified five factors that a district court
must consider before dismissing a case . . . :
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to
the other party; (4) the public policy favoring
the disposition of cases on their merits; and
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.
Dreith, 648 F.3d at 788 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-00491-LEK-WRP Document 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

4
Complaint, and there are no less drastic alternatives available
at this time.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in the 2/2
Order, Thorson’s False Claims Act qui tam Complaint, filed
November 21, 2025, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Thorson’s
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs, filed November 21, 2025, is DENIED AS MOOT. The
Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close the case immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 3, 2026.
LAURIE THORSON VS. HAWAI`I PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL; CV
25-00491 LEK-WRP; ORDER: 	DISMISSING RELATOR’S FALSE CAIMS ACT
QUI TAM COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDIE; DENYING RELATOR’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN AND DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE TO CLOSE THE CASE
Case 1:25-cv-00491-LEK-WRP Document 11 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4
PageID.<pageID>