Client Alerts & Newsletters

Dismissal, Says Who? Recent Seventh and Ninth Circuit Decisions Offer Competing Views on DOJ’s Dismissal Authority under the False Claims Act, But Congress May Have the Last Word

Sep.18.2020

In the span of only two weeks last month, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit became the first two Circuit Courts to issue decisions on lower court’s denials of Government dismissal requests pursuant to its authority under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(2)(A). As discussed in greater detail in Crowell & Moring’s Feature Comment in the Government Contractor entitled “You Win Some, You Lose Some: In Wake Of Ninth Circuit Defeat, The Government Gets A Big Win From Seventh Circuit Ruling Expanding Its Dismissal Authority Over FCA Qui Tam Actions” available here, there is now further disagreement among the Courts and within the Government itself regarding the extent of the Government’s dismissal authority under the FCA.

There are several key takeaways from the decisions and dialog between Congress and the Department of Justice for consideration when analyzing whether the Government will exercise its dismissal authority in a FCA action.

  • The Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. UCB, Inc., 970 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2020) adds a third approach to the existing circuit split headlined by the D.C. Circuit in Swift v. U.S., 318 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003), and Ninth Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998) on how courts should assess the Government’s statutory right to dismiss qui tam cases.
  • UCB is favorable for defendants in that the Seventh Circuit agreed with the D.C. Circuit that the Government should have a nearly unassailable right to dismiss qui tam cases brought in the Government’s name by relators.
  • The Seventh Circuit complicated the Government’s path to seek dismissal by requiring it to first intervene in the case, adding an administrative burden and requiring good cause for intervention when the Government seeks to dismiss after initially declining to intervene.
  • Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a vocal opponent of the view that the Government has unfettered dismissal authority, is said to be working on legislation to restrict the Government’s right to dismiss qui tam actions, an action that could resolve the growing circuit split without intervention by the Supreme Court.

For additional commentary on these developments, see Crowell & Moring’s Feature Comment in the Government Contractor available here or contact any of the attorneys in this alert.

For more information, please contact the professional(s) listed below, or your regular Crowell & Moring contact.

Brian Tully McLaughlin
Partner – Washington, D.C.
Phone: +1 202.624.2628
Email: bmclaughlin@crowell.com

Jacinta Alves
Partner – Washington, D.C.
Phone: +1 202.624.2573
Email: jalves@crowell.com

Preston L. Pugh
Partner – Washington, D.C.
Phone: +1 202.624.2669
Email: ppugh@crowell.com

Lyndsay A. Gorton
Counsel – Washington, D.C.
Phone: +1 202.654.6713
Email: lgorton@crowell.com

Sean K. Griffin
Associate – Washington, D.C.
Phone: +1 202.624.2821
Email: sgriffin@crowell.com

Crowell & Moring LLP is an international law firm with more than 500 lawyers representing clients in litigation and arbitration, regulatory, and transactional matters. The firm is internationally recognized for its representation of Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes litigation, as well as its ongoing commitment to pro bono service and diversity. The firm has offices in Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange County, London, Brussels, and Shanghai.

View Desktop Site | Mobile Sitemap

Contact | Subscribe | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Alumni

© Crowell & Moring LLP 2020
Attorney advertising - prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.