31 U.S.C. § 3130
Annual public debt report
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Products, L.P.
United States Ex Rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Products, L.P. (2009)
“The district court’s dismissal of the kickback claims turns on the “public disclosure” bar, set forth at 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (e)(4). It provides: (A) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions…”
Zernik v. U.S. Department of Justice (2009)
“2006) (internal citation omitted); 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (b), pro se plaintiffs are not qualified to represent the interests of the United States in such an action, United States ex rel.”
Thomas Mooney v. Douglas Fife (2024)
“1997), superseded by statute, 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (h) (2009). Other circuit courts read the FCA’s “in furtherance of” language more broadly to include protection against “retaliation for filing an internal complaint.”
US Ex Rel. Kent v. Aiello (1993)
“First, they contend that plaintiff has failed to allege an action “filed or to be filed” which they claim is a necessary element under 31 U.S.C. § 3130 ; second, that plaintiff alleged her termination to be in response to testimony provided to the Grand Jury, a circumstance not…”
United States ex rel. Branch Consultants, L.L.C. v. Allstate Insurance (2009)
“Rockwell abrogated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that the phrase “information upon which the allegations are based” in 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (e)(4)(A) refers to the publicly disclosed information, and instead held that it refers to the information in a relator’s complaint.”
Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, Inc. v. United States (2004)
“2004) (“Ervin") (Qui tarn action brought under False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3130 , alleging that Hamilton and others were engaged in a variety of unlawful actions arising out of the same transactions at issue in this case); Hamilton Securities Advisory Servs.”
United States v. St. Joseph's Regional Health Center (2002)
“1996), and the government may change its mind and seek to intervene following a decision not to intervene, upon a showing of good cause, 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (c)(3). Neither of these expedients, however, abuses the essential nature of the False Claims Act, which is to allow a…”
McCollum v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (2014)
“The complaint also contained a claim for retaliatory discharge pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (h). The False Claims Act (“FCA”) may be enforced by the Attorney General, or by a private person, known as a “relator,” who brings a qui torn suit “for the person and for the United…”
United States v. Coloplast Corp. (2018)
“It argues that plaintiff-relators' action should be dismissed under the False Claims Act's ("FCA") "government action bar," 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (e)(3), and the analogous provision of California's FCA statute, Cal.”
United States Ex Rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC (2006)
“Accordingly, judgment will be entered on the jury’s verdict finding Custer Battles’s violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (h), and awarding damages of $165,000 to Baldwin.”
Castenson v. City of Harcourt (2000)
“” 31 U.S.C. § 3130 . “The focus of the Act is on exposing fraud on the government and recovering resulting government losses.”
US EX REL. BRANCH CONSULTANTS v. Allstate Ins. (2009)
“Rockwell abrogated the Fifth Circuit's ruling that the phrase "information upon which the allegations are based" in 31 U.S.C. § 3130 (e)(4)(A) refers to the publicly disclosed information, and instead held that it refers to the information in a relator's complaint.”
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.