green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
57.4 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 3 distinct cases, 2013–2015 ·
…the relator has a right to recover a share of the proceeds of the alternate remedy to the same degree that he or she would have been entitled to a share of the proceeds of an fca action.
at p. 1010
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Xuming Zhang v. Merrick Garland
the term 'any' is generally used to indicate lack of restrictions or limitations on the term modified.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cecilia Guardiola v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
an alternate remedy under 3730(c)(5) is a remedy achieved through the government's pursuit of a claim after it has chosen not to intervene in a qui tam relator's action.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. James Wegeler
an alternate remedy under 3730(c)(5) is a remedy achieved through the government's pursuit of a claim after it has chosen not to intervene in a qui tam relator's fca action.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adventist Health System of West v. Abbvie Inc.
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1005 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott J. Roberts, P.T. v. Virginia Board of Physical Therapy
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001))). - 20 - Whether Roberts intended to silence Patient B, the end result endangered the “health” and “welfare” of the public.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fiorisce v. Colorado Technical University
Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004, 1006, 1010-12 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding a settlement agreement initiated by the Air Force with a defense contractor to resolve a suspension/debarment proceeding was an alternate remedy because it was substantially the same remedy as could have been obtained if the government intervened in the FCA action); In re Pharm.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. United States, Citibank, N.A.
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001))); see also Hefner, 495 F.3d at 112 ("The statute evinces no intent to compensate relators who bring unfounded § 3729 claims . . . .").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Kishor v. Jillian
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1005 (9th Cir. 2001); Stoner v. Santa Clara 19 County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “a pro se relator cannot 20 prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kuriyan v. HCSC Insurance Services
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
USA ex rel Elizabeth Kennedy v. Novo A/S
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of New York v. Siemens Elec., LLC
Barajas v United States , 258 F3d 1004, 1010 [9th Cir 2001]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of New York v. Siemens Elec., LLC
Barajas v United States , 258 F3d 1004, 1010 [9th Cir 2001]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State ex rel. Hurst v. Fanatics, Inc.
Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001); United States ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State ex rel. Hurst v. Fanatics, Inc.
Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001); United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kennedy v. Novo A/S
(2×)
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An alternate remedy under § 3730(c)(5) is a remedy achieved through the government’s pursuit of a claim after it has chosen not to intervene in a qui tam relator’s FCA action.” (citing United States ex rel.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
GUARDIOLA v. RENOWN HEALTH
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shi v. Moog, Inc.
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001) (“On the facts of this case, it is clear that if Northrop had not agreed to replace and repair the faulty FDTs [flight data transmitters] and replace the defective damping fluid, the government would have had to pay to cure the problem.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc.
While Babalola and Webster dealt directly with whether the "alternate remedy" provision is applicable when there is no qui tam action pending, the courts in Barajas and Bledsoe were focused more on whether the applicability of § 3730(c)(5) depended on whether or not the government had intervened in the qui tam action--and they concluded that it was applicable only if the government had not intervened, see , e.g. , Bledsoe , 342 F.3d at 647 ("We hold that 'alternate remedy' refers to the government's pursuit of any alternative to intervening in a relator's qui tam action." (emphasis added)); *…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America ex rel William E. Toelkes and Fred J. Toelkes v. Toa Corporation
Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc.
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An alternate remedy under [Section] 3730(c)(5) is a remedy achieved through the government’s pursuit of a claim after it has chosen not to intervene in a qui tam relator’s FCA action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. Lee v. Northern Adult Daily Health Care Center
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.2001) (assessing relator’s allegations and procedural history and concluding that settlement agreement with government requiring debarment qualified as an "alternate remedy”); In re Pharm.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Rille v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
(4×)
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Meridian Joint School District No. 2 v. D.A.
In Matthew’s case, the district court declined to follow the Fifth Circuit’s approach on the grounds that it could look beyond the language of a statute to avoid “an absurd result or a decision that would violate Congressional intent in enacting the statute.” See Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kurlander
Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Babalola v. Arun Sharma
(2×)
Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir.2001) 6 (describing an “alternate remedy under § 3730(c)(5) [as] a remedy achieved through the government’s pursuit of a claim after it has chosen not to intervene in a qui tam relator’s FCA action”) (emphasis added). 7 Nevertheless, the relators argue that our holding “would completely eviscerate the FCA by allowing the government to sidestep putative relators by racing to beat them to the courthouse through initiating related criminal or other actions as soon as a putative relator voluntarily discloses fraud to the government…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Neal Roberts v. United States
(2×)
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Neal Roberts v. United States
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. Sun v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010-13 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Watanabe v. Lankford
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.2001) (citations and quotation marks omitted), or “contravene any clear legislative history[.]” In re Catapult Entm’t, Inc., 165 F.3d 747 , 754 (9th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Bledsoe v. Community Health Systems, Inc.
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010-13 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Community Health Systems, Inc.
Barajas v. United States, 258 F.3d 1004, 1010-13 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Alderson v. Quorum Health Group, Inc.
Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.2001) (clear statutory scheme “designed to help fight fraud against the government by encouraging private individuals to come forward with information about fraud that might otherwise remain hidden.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Danny Lee Kyllo
v.
Danny Lee Kyllo
96-30333.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 3, 2001.
258 F.3d 1004
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6645
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17217
Published
258 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DANNY LEE KYLLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 96-30333
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
August 3, 2001
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court D.C. No. CR-92-00051-1-HJF
Before: Melvin Brunetti, John T. Noonan, and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
The judgment of this court, 190 F.3d 1041, is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Kyllo v. United States, 121 S. Ct. 2038 (2001).