The United States Supreme Court has ruled in an 8-1 decision that the U.S. government has broad authority to dismiss whistleblower actions over the individual whistleblower’s objections so long as the government intervenes under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) at some point in the case. The Court also held that the standard lower courts should apply to such a motion is the rule generally governing dismissal in civil suits – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). United States ex. rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc., 599 U.S.____ (2023).
Polansky was a lawsuit arising under the FCA, also called a whistleblower lawsuit or “qui tam” action. The purpose of the FCA is to impose civil liability on anyone who misappropriates government assets by knowingly submitting false claims to the government.[1] The FCA is unique in that it permits private parties (whistleblowers, called “relators” in the statute) to sue on the government’s behalf. The FCA incentivizes whistleblowers to litigate false claims by allowing them to receive up to 30% of the total recovery in the case.
FCA cases have procedural quirks that differ from normal civil lawsuits. Relevant to Polansky, the relator must first file the complaint under seal (i.e., outside the public record) and serve a copy on the government. The government then has 60 days (a period which is often extended) to decide whether to “intervene” and take the case over from the relator. If the government elects not to intervene, the...
SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Thursday refused to toss all claims against a sugar company accused in a putative class action of advertising its products as eco-friendly while giving t...