On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, affirming that courts should grant DOJ motions to dismiss over relator objections “in all but the most exceptional cases.” Prior coverage of this case is here and here.
Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Kagan affirmed the Third Circuit’s holding that, in an FCA action, the government may move to dismiss a qui tam suit whenever the government has intervened—regardless of whether it initially declined to intervene—and courts should apply the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) standard for voluntary dismissals in reviewing the government’s motion. The Court added two caveats to this latter review: there must be a hearing on the dismissal (per 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A)) and the reviewing court should consider relator’s interest in the action moving forward in light of any invested resources. That said, the Court observed that the government’s dismissal will almost always satisfy Rule 41.
Polansky thus affirms that DOJ enjoys significant authority and discretion to balance the interests of the United States and move to dismiss qui tam actions over relator objections. As the Court explained, a reviewing court should grant the government’s motion to dismiss under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A)—or a “(2)(A) motion”—if the government offers a “reasonable argument for why the burdens of continued litigation outweigh its benefits,” even if relator “presents a...
Although on appeal the court distinguished that there was new information in the claim, the court ultimately found the new information was not material, nor was it plead with particularity. The U....