The Supreme Court recently granted a petition for certiorari in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, a case in which the Court has been asked to decide (1) whether the federal government has the authority to dismiss an action filed by a relator under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions where the Government declines intervention, and (2) if the Government does have such authority, what standard courts must apply when adjudicating such dismissal requests.[1] This issue has long drawn significant attention from the Government, the defense bar, and the relator’s bar, and the Court’s apparent willingness to resolve longstanding circuit splits on both questions has significant implications for all participants in the False Claims Act and Government contracting space.
Thus far, circuit courts have devised at least four different standards to evaluate Government-initiated motions to dismiss qui tam actions—likely one reason the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on the subject. Some circuits are highly deferential to the Government’s ability to dismiss. For example, in the D.C. Circuit, the Government has “an unfettered right to dismiss an action.”[2] The First Circuit generally agrees with the D.C. Circuit but does permit judicial review of Government motions to dismiss in cases where a relator can demonstrate that the Government has perpetrated a “fraud on the court” or “transgress[ed] constitutional limitations.”[3] Some circuits are more...
A federal jury has convicted a San Francisco man of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering in connection with a scheme involving fraudulent insurance claims on already-wrecked vehicles, pros...