The Presentment Requirement of the False Claims Act
Allison Engine Co., et al. v. United States ex rel. Sanders
No. 07-214
Supreme Court of the United States
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s holding that the False Claims Act, with its threat of treble damages, applies to private transactions where no false claim is actually presented to the federal government. In its brief, NCLC argued that this holding misread the statutory language and would hinder the resolution of private commercial disputes without preventing fraud actually committed against the government by attaching liability to any transaction where a claim is paid with funds traceable to the federal government.
Amicus brief filed 9/19/07. Cert. granted 10/29/07. Amicus brief on the merits filed 12/20/07. Oral argument to be held 2/26/08.
View brief
The Presentment Requirement of the False Claims Act
Allison Engine Co., et al. v. United States ex rel. Sanders
No. 07-214
Supreme Court of the United States
As urged by NCLC, the Supreme Court granted review of the Sixth Circuit's holding that the False Claims Act, with its threat of treble damages, applies to private transactions if the funds involved are contributed by the government. In its brief, NCLC argued that this holding misread the statutory language and would hinder the resolution of private commercial disputes without preventing fraud actually committed against the government.
Amicus brief filed 9/19/07. Cert. granted 10/29/07.
View brief
The Meaning of a "False Claim" under the False Claims Act
United States ex rel. Tyson v. Amerigroup Illinois, et al.
Nos. 07-2111 & 07-2113
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
The Seventh Circuit refused to consider NCLC's amicus brief urging the court to vacate the $334 million False Claims Act verdict because, among other things, the government knew of the defendant's conduct and therefore could not have been defrauded. In this case, Amerigroup is charged with discriminating in its HMO plan against women in the third trimester of pregnancy even though Amerigroup apprised, without objection, the relevant Illinois agency of its strategy for reducing complaints by these women when they could not see their doctors of choice. In its brief, NCLC argued that the district court's expansive reading of the False Claims Act will have a dampening effect on participation in governmental programs.
Amicus brief filed 9/26/07. Court order denying amicus brief 10/11/07.
View brief
The Statute of Limitations under the California False Claims Act
State of California ex rel. Hindin v. Hewlett Packard and Agilent Technologies, Inc.
No. S155583
California Supreme Court
NCLC urged the California Supreme Court to reverse the California Court of Appeal and instead affirm the trial court's decision to dismiss this case on statute of limitations grounds. California's False Claims Act limits filing of complaints based on information discovered more than three years previous to the time of filing. That bar references "the official of the state or political subdivision charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances" as the individual subject to this discovery rule. The private whistle-blower in this case argued that he is not such an individual and therefore is subject instead to the ten-year statute of repose. NCLC contended that the private whistle-blowers sue in the name of the state and are therefore subject to the same limitations period.
Amicus brief filed 2/8/07. Oral argument held 5/17/07. Decision 7/13/07. Amicus brief supporting petition for review filed 9/20/07.
View brief
The Statute of Limitations under the California False Claims Act
State of California ex rel. Hindin v. Hewlett Packard and Agilent Technologies, Inc.
No. A114629
Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District
The California Court of Appeal rejected NCLC's recommendation that it affirm the trial court's decision to dismiss this case on statute of limitations grounds. California's False Claims Act limits filing of complaints based on information discovered more than three years previous to the time of filing. That bar references "the official of the state or political subdivision charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances" as the individual subject to this discovery rule. The private whistle-blower in this case argued that he is not such an individual and therefore is subject instead to the ten-year statute of repose. NCLC contended that the private whistle-blowers sue in the name of the state and are therefore subject to the same limitations period.
Amicus brief filed 2/8/07. Oral argument held 5/17/07. Decision 7/13/07.
View brief
"Original Source" of False Claims Act 'Qui Tam' Suits
Rockwell International Corp. v. United States ex rel. Stone
No. 05-1272
Supreme Court of the United States
Agreeing with NCLC, the Supreme Court made clear that a private individual who sues in the government's name under the False Claims Act must have "direct and independent knowledge" of the claims upon which the lawsuit is based. NCLC filed an amicus brief arguing that Congress intended a tighter knowledge requirement than that applied by a number of the circuits. By the express terms of the act, only private plaintiffs who are the "original source[s]" of information supporting a claim of fraud against a government contractor may bring actions on behalf of the federal government. The high court's decision that the original source requirement is jurisdictional and must be the basis of successful claims alleging the complaint should put an end to the practice of some circuits that, contrary to Congress' plain intent, permitted plaintiffs who did not themselves uncover the fraud at issue to file false claims actions based on publicly disclosed information.
Amicus brief in support of Cert. filed 7/14/06. Cert. granted 9/26/06. Amicus brief on the merits filed 10/25/06. Moot court held 11/29/06. Oral argument held 12/5/06. Decision 3/27/07.
View brief
False Claims Act 'Qui Tam' Suit
Rockwell International Corp. v. United States ex rel Stone
No. 05-1272
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court granted review to consider the meaning of the "original source" requirement in the False Claims Act. By the express terms of the act, only private plaintiffs who are the "original source[s]" of information supporting a claim of fraud against a government contractor may bring actions on behalf of the federal government. NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant review in and to resolve the ongoing controversy as to whether private plaintiffs may litigate in the name of the U.S. government when filing lawsuits pursuant to the False Claims Act. In its brief, NCLC contended these "qui tam" suits violate Article II of the United States Constitution by improperly delegating a core executive function -- the exercise of prosecutorial authority -- to non-governmental parties. The Supreme Court did not grant review as to this Article II question.
Amicus brief filed 7/14/06. Cert. granted 9/26/06.
View brief
Share This Page