U.S. Code » Title 31 » Subtitle SUBTITLE III— FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT › Chapter CHAPTER 37— CLAIMS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

31 U.S.C. § 3731

False claims procedure

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A subpena requiring the attendance of a witness at a trial or hearing conducted under section 3730 of this title may be served at any place in the United States.(b) A civil action under section 3730 may not be brought—(1) more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed, or(2) more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed,whichever occurs last.(c) If the Government elects to intervene and proceed with an action brought under 3730(b),11 So in original. Probably should be preceded by “section”. the Government may file its own complaint or amend the complaint of a person who has brought an action under section 3730(b) to clarify or add detail to the claims in which the Government is intervening and to add any additional claims with respect to which the Government contends it is entitled to relief. For statute of limitations purposes, any such Government pleading shall relate back to the filing date of the complaint of the person who originally brought the action, to the extent that the claim of the Government arises out of the conduct, transactions, or occurrences set forth, or attempted to be set forth, in the prior complaint of that person.(d) In any action brought under section 3730, the United States shall be required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence.(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Evidence, a final judgment rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding charging fraud or false statements, whether upon a verdict after trial or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, shall estop the defendant from denying the essential elements of the offense in any action which involves the same transaction as in the criminal proceeding and which is brought under subsection (a) or (b) of section 3730.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 979; Pub. L. 99–562, § 5, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3158; Pub. L. 111–21, § 4(b), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1623.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

3731(a)

31:232(F).

R.S. § 3491(F); added Nov. 2, 1978, Pub. L. 95–582, § 1, 92 Stat. 2479.

3731(b)

31:235.

R.S. § 3494.

In subsection (b), the words “A civil action under section 3730 of this title” are substituted for “Every such suit” for clarity.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsec. (e), are set out in the Appendix to Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in subsec. (e), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendments

2009—Subsecs. (c) to (e). Pub. L. 111–21, which directed amendment of section “3731(b)” of this title by adding subsec. (c) and redesignating former subsecs. (c) and (d) as (d) and (e), respectively, was executed by making the amendment to this section, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1986—Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 99–562 added subsecs. (b) to (d) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “A civil action under section 3730 of this title must be brought within 6 years from the date the violation is committed.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–21 effective May 20, 2009, and applicable to conduct on or after May 20, 2009, except that this section, as amended by Pub. L. 111–21, applicable to cases pending on May 20, 2009, see section 4(f) of Pub. L. 111–21, set out as a note under section 3729 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 398 cases (89 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005). · cites it 10× “Thus, while I agree with much of the reasoning in the Court's cogent opinion in Graham County, I write separately because I would agree with the Court of Appeals' reading of the text of 31 U. S. C. § 3731 (b)(1) were it not for this anomaly.”
United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 15× “31 U.S.C. § 3731 (b). The WSLA was enacted in 1942 to extend the time for prosecution to bring charges relat- ing to criminal fraud offenses against the United States during 8 UNITED STATES v.”
United States Ex Rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “is committed," 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (b)(1), or • "3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than…”
SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328 (2017). · cites it 4× “(limitations period in 31 U. S. C. §3731 (b)(1) begins to run when the cause of action accrues); TRW Inc.”
United States Ex Rel. Amin v. George Washington Univ., 26 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D.D.C. 1998). · cites it 16× “2Jh 1989 as Prohibited by the Statute of Limitations Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the portion of relator’s claims that pre-date October 24, 1989 as prohibited by the statute of limitations contained in the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (b). Defendant claims that the applicable…”
Storey v. Patient First Corp., 207 F. Supp. 2d 431 (E.D. Va. 2002). · cites it 13× “Rather, the only statute of limitations provided in the False Claims Act appears at 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (b), which provides: A civil action under section 3730 may not be brought— (1) more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed, or (2) more…”
Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States Ex Rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005). · cites it 4× “[†] This case presents the question whether the 6-year statute of limitations in the False Claims Act (FCA or Act), see 31 U. S. C. § 3731 (b)(1), governs FCA civil actions for retaliation, see § 3730(h).”
United States v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 501 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “The district court closely scrutinized the allegations in Relator’s SAC, and arrived at four holdings: (1) several allegations in Relator’s SAC should be dismissed for fañure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); (2) of the allegations that survived Rule 9(b)…”
United States Ex Rel. Keshav S. Joshi v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc. Mohammed Bashiti, United States of Am., Movant Below, 441 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “See 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (b)(1). Furthermore, the three-year tolling provision of 31 U.”
United States Ex Rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., 51 F. Supp. 3d 9 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 7× ““As a result,” the Tailwind defendants contend, “even if this court were to find Landis’s complaint not barred by section 278, the government could not save its own untimely complaint through the relation-back provision of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (c).” Id. at 8 .…”
United States ex rel. Wood v. Allergan, Inc., 246 F. Supp. 3d 772 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 4× “at 1978 , the parties’ dispute would be academic, but for one critical fact: During the six years in which the Government investigated Wood’s claims and the case remained under seal, the statute of limitations ran on most, if not all, of Wood’s FCA claims, see 31 U.S.C. § 3731…”
United States Ex Rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 848 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “First, did the district court apply the proper standard for imputing knowledge under the AKA? Second, does the AKA require proof of a connection between the alleged kickback and a specific instance of favorable treatment? Third, does the Government’s AKA claim relate back to the…”
Show all 398 citing cases →
31 U.S.C. § 3731(b): 1 case
United States of Am. v. Krause (D.S.D. 2018).
31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1): 1 case
United States of Am. v. Krause (D.S.D. 2018).
31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2): 3 cases
Debro v. Los Angeles Raiders, 92 Cal. App. 4th 940 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
Veridyne Corp. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 668 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
State ex rel. Hindin v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
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.