Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G (2026)

Actions brought against governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, treasurer, secretary of state, etc.; jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 5G. (a) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought pursuant to section 5C against the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the treasurer, the secretary of state, the auditor, a member of the general court, the inspector general or a member of the judiciary, if the action is based on evidence or information known to the commonwealth when the action was brought.

(b) An individual may not bring an action pursuant to paragraph (2) of said section 5C that is based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit or an administrative proceeding in which the commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof is already a party.

(c) The court shall dismiss an action or claim pursuant to sections 5B to 5O, inclusive, unless opposed by the commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed: (1) in a Massachusetts criminal, civil or administrative hearing in which the commonwealth is a party; (2) in a Massachusetts legislative, administrative, auditor's or inspector general's report, hearing, audit or investigation; or (3) from the news media, unless the action is brought by the attorney general, or the relator is an original source of the information.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2023 · leading case: Scannell v. Attorney Gen., 872 N.E.2d 1136 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scannell v. Attorney Gen., 872 N.E.2d 1136 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “For example, no person may bring a qui tam complaint predicated on information that is already the subject of a civil suit or administrative proceeding to which the Commonwealth is a party, see G. L. c. 12, § 5G(2), and no court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action…”

United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Mass. 2006). · cites it 2× “175/4(e)(4)(A); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G(3); Nev.Rev.”

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Johan Rosenberg v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co. & Others (Mass. Super. Ct. 2019). · cites it 5× “" G.L. c. 12, § 5G(c) (emphasis added). The public disclosure bar aims to "strike a balance between encouraging whistle-blowing and discouraging opportunistic behavior.”

Rosenberg v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Mass. 2021). · cites it 4× “G. L. c. 12, § 5G (c). Applying this public disclosure bar to the complaint at issue here, a Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint.”

Powell v. Holmes (D. Mass. 2021). · cites it 2× “The public-disclosure bar is codified in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G(c). It provides that, unless opposed by the Commonwealth, courts “shall” dismiss actions or claims brought under the MFCA “if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or…”

State of Cal. ex rel. Edelweiss Fund v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “(Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G, subd. (c).) 9 While we would apply an abuse of discretion standard to review the trial court’s denial of leave to amend, no such argument has been raised in this appeal.”

State of California ex rel. Edelweiss Fund v. JPMorgan etc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “(Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G, subd. (c).) 9 While we would apply an abuse of discretion standard to review the trial court’s denial of leave to amend, no such argument has been raised in this appeal.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G(2) — 1 case

Scannell v. Attorney Gen., 872 N.E.2d 1136 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “For example, no person may bring a qui tam complaint predicated on information that is already the subject of a civil suit or administrative proceeding to which the Commonwealth is a party, see G. L. c. 12, § 5G(2), and no court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action…”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G(3) — 2 cases

United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Mass. 2006). “175/4(e)(4)(A); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G(3); Nev.Rev.”

Scannell v. Attorney Gen., 872 N.E.2d 1136 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “For example, no person may bring a qui tam complaint predicated on information that is already the subject of a civil suit or administrative proceeding to which the Commonwealth is a party, see G. L. c. 12, § 5G(2), and no court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action…”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G(c) — 2 cases

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Johan Rosenberg v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co. & Others (Mass. Super. Ct. 2019). “" G.L. c. 12, § 5G(c) (emphasis added). The public disclosure bar aims to "strike a balance between encouraging whistle-blowing and discouraging opportunistic behavior.”

Powell v. Holmes (D. Mass. 2021). “The public-disclosure bar is codified in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5G(c). It provides that, unless opposed by the Commonwealth, courts “shall” dismiss actions or claims brought under the MFCA “if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.