Category: Relators

New Orleans Federal Court Dismisses Relators’ Improper Billing Claims against FEMA Temporary Housing Contractor Due to Insufficient Evidence

On September 14, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a government contractor’s summary judgment motion and dismissed a lawsuit brought against it by False Claims Act relators (“Relators”) because Relators failed to identify evidence supporting the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding their claims that the contractor had improperly billed the Federal Emergency Management Agency...

Texas Diagnostic Imaging Service Settles FCA Allegations for $3.5 Million; Whistle-Blower to Receive $596,700

A recent settlement illustrates the substantial recovery available to whistle-blowers under the FCA’s qui tam provisions. Those provisions allow a qui tam plaintiff to receive typically between 15 percent and 25 percent of the proceeds of an FCA settlement.  31 U.S.C. § 3730(d). The settling party—Preferred Imaging—is a Dallas-based company that operates independent diagnostic facilities in Texas, Illinois, and Kansas. Preferred Imaging performs procedures involving the administration of contrast...

First Circuit Permits Supplementation of Complaint to Cure First-to-File Jurisdictional Defects

The FCA first-to-file bar provides that if an action involving the same subject matter is already pending, “no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.”  31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5).  Courts are thus deprived of jurisdiction to entertain opportunistic qui tam lawsuits based on facts similar to an already-filed lawsuit.  In May 2015, the...

New York Trial Court Dismisses FCA Tax Case against Vanguard; Determines Relator Violated Confidentiality Provisions of State Attorney Ethics Rules

On November 13, 2015, the New York State Supreme Court dismissed a qui tam action brought under New York State Finance Law §§ 187-194 (“False Claims Act”) against The Vanguard Group Inc., The Vanguard Group of Mutual Funds, and Vanguard Marketing Corporation (collectively, “Vanguard”) by a former Vanguard in-house tax attorney because the Court found that plaintiff had improperly relied on confidential information obtained through...