relator

Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt

Issues

In a False Claims Act qui tam action in which the United States government does not intervene, under what circumstances may the relator rely on the statute of limitations set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2)?

This case asks whether relators can benefit from the longer of the False Claims Act’s two statutes of limitations. The False Claims Act (“FCA”) contains two statutes of limitations, and circuits are split as to whether both statutes of limitations apply to private individuals. Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and the Parsons Corporation contend that, based on a contextual interpretation of the FCA, only the Act’s six-year statute of limitations, from when the cause of action occurs, should apply to relators. Billy Joe Hunt, the relator in this suit, counters that the plain language of the statute permits relators to benefit from the FCA’s three-year statute of limitations, which begins when an official of the United States learns the materials facts of the action, even when the United States is not a party. This case will likely impact the number and costs of suits brought under the FCA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an “official of the United States” for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2).

In 2006, Respondent Billy Joe Hunt worked for the Parsons Corporation (“Parsons”) in Iraq to fulfill Parson’s $60 million munitions clean-up contract with the Department of Defense. United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc. at 1083–84. Parsons sought bids from subcontractors and initially awarded a contract to ArmorGroup.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Graham County Soil v. United States

Issues

Does the Federal Claims Act jurisdictional bar apply only to publicly disclosed federal reports, audits, and investigations, or does it apply to publicly disclosed state reports, audits, and investigations as well?

 

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.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether an audit and investigation performed by a State or its political subdivision constitutes an “administrative . . . report . . . audit, or investigation” within the meaning of the public disclosure jurisdictional bar of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A).

In February 1995, petitioners, Graham County and Cherokee County (collectively, the “Counties”), applied for federal assistance under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (the "EWP Program"), a United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) federal disaster assistance program. See United States ex rel. Wilson v. Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 528 F.3d 292, 296 (4th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

·      Legal Information Institute: Graham County Soil v. United States (I)

·      Wex: Law about False Claims Act

Submit for publication
0

U.S., Ex Rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York

Issues

If the United States decides not to intervene when a party files a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, should the party be allowed a 60-day time limit to file its notice of appeal because the United States is technically a party, or should they be subject to the standard 30-day time limit?

 

Fifty-four days after the Southern District of New York dismissed Irwin Eisenstein's qui tam action against the City of New York, Eisenstein filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit asked the parties to brief whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, parties only have 30 days to file a notice of appeal, and this will be extended to 60 days when the United States is a party.  Eisenstein claimed that, even though the United States declined to intervene, it was a "real party of interest" and therefore he was entitled to the 60 day limit. The City of New York conceded that, while the United States was a "party of interest", they were not a party for the purpose of measuring the timeline on appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the relator in a qui tam action is entitled to the extended 60 day time limit for appeal when the United States chooses not to intervene in the action.

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether the 30-day time limit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) for filing a notice of appeal, or the 60-day time limit in Rule 4(a)(1)(B), applies to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, where the United States has declined to intervene in that action.

    Eisenstein's Underlying Complaint

    Irwin Eisenstein was an employee of the City of New York ("the City"), and during his employment he lived in both New Jersey and the City. See U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v.

    Written by

    Edited by

    Submit for publication
    0
    Subscribe to relator