Skip to main content

False Claims Act

Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States, ex rel. Daniel Kirk (10-188)

Oral argument: March 1, 2011

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Apr. 6, 2010)

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, FALSE CLAIMS ACT, QUI TAM

Daniel Kirk, a Vietnam War veteran, filed a qui tam suit against Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler"), alleging that Schindler violated the False Claims Act ("FCA") through its failure to comply with The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustments Assistance Act ("VEVRAA"). Section 3730(e)(4) of the FCA expressly states that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over claims based upon “public disclosure of . . . administrative . . . report[s] . . . or investigation[s].” Kirk's FCA claim utilized information requested from the Department of Labor under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, holding that information obtained through a FOIA request constitutes a “report” or “investigation” under the FCA, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. In doing so, the Second Circuit rejected the Third Circuit’s method of focusing upon the dictionary definitions of “report” and “investigation” and instead adopted the Ninth Circuit’s method of considering the “nature of the [FOIA] document itself.” Schindler appealed, claiming that FOIA responses, by virtue of being produced by federal agencies, are "reports” or “investigations" and therefore fit the FCA public disclosure bar. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether a federal agency's FOIA disclosure is a "report" or "investigation" under Section 3730(e)(4).

Graham County Soil v. United States (08-304)

Oral argument: Nov. 30, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (June 9, 2008)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT, QUI TAM, RELATOR, SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

Respondent, the United States ex rel. Karen Wilson ("Wilson"), brought a qui tam action against two North Carolinian counties, Graham and Cherokee (collectively the “Counties”), for allegedly filing fraudulent reimbursement claims with the federal government. The Counties argue that, under the False Claims Act, no court has jurisdiction over Wilson's suit, because the State of North Carolina had previously publicly disclosed the information on which Wilson relies in her suit. Wilson counters that the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar refers only to federal reports, audits, and investigations. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether, under the False Claims Act, a publicly disclosed state audit and investigation may preclude jurisdiction over a qui tam action.

U.S., Ex Rel. Eisenstein v. New York, NY (08-660)

Oral argument: April 21, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Aug. 19, 2008)

Allison Engine Co. v. United States (07-214)

Oral argument: February 26, 2008

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit (December 19, 2006)

Syndicate content