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. § 3732

False claims jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Actions Under Section 3730.—Any action under section 3730 may be brought in any judicial district in which the defendant or, in the case of multiple defendants, any one defendant can be found, resides, transacts business, or in which any act proscribed by section 3729 occurred. A summons as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be issued by the appropriate district court and served at any place within or outside the United States.(b)Claims Under State Law.—The district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought under the laws of any State for the recovery of funds paid by a State or local government if the action arises from the same transaction or occurrence as an action brought under section 3730.(c)Service on State or Local Authorities.—With respect to any State or local government that is named as a co-plaintiff with the United States in an action brought under subsection (b), a seal on the action ordered by the court under section 3730(b) shall not preclude the Government or the person bringing the action from serving the complaint, any other pleadings, or the written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information possessed by the person bringing the action on the law enforcement authorities that are authorized under the law of that State or local government to investigate and prosecute such actions on behalf of such governments, except that such seal applies to the law enforcement authorities so served to the same extent as the seal applies to other parties in the action.(Added Pub. L. 99–562, § 6(a), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 3158; amended Pub. L. 111–21, § 4(e), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1625.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

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

Amendments

2009—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–21 added subsec. (c).

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 220 cases (60 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: United States ex rel. Salomon v. Wolff, 268 F. Supp. 3d 770 (D. Md. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States ex rel. Salomon v. Wolff, 268 F. Supp. 3d 770 (D. Md. 2017). · cites it 3× “It stated that venue was proper in the District of Maryland “pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) because LBG transacts business in, and acts proscribed by 31 U.”
Hawaii v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d 842 (D. Haw. 2006). · cites it 10× “§ 1446 (b) (1988) and that original jurisdiction exists under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (b) (1986). 1. Procedural requirements for removal Dey asserts that the procedural requirements for removal may be satisfied in two ways: (1) by finding that the initial Notice of Removal constitutes…”
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007). · cites it 2× “To eliminate jurisdiction, the court believed, it is those jurisdiction-conferring sections that would have to be referenced.”
United States ex rel. Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC v. Victaulic Co., 839 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 1331 and 31 U.S.C. § 3732 . We have jurisdiction over the District Court’s orders dismissing the complaint, denying relief from judgment, and denying CFI’s motion for leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.”
Laura Canaday v. Anthem Companies, Inc., 9 F.4th 392 (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 1965 (d), and The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). But that is the less frequently exercised option, and the FLSA does not use it.”
United States ex rel. Charte v. Am. Tutor, Inc., 934 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 1331 and 31 U.S.C. § 3732 . We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.”
Stinson, Lyons & Bustamante, P.A. v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 474 (Fed. Cl. 1995). · cites it 3× “can be found, resides____” 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) (emphasis added). FACTS In its complaint, Stinson alleges that this suit is to recover funds possessed by the United States, which are rightfully due plaintiff pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.”
United States ex rel. Jane Doe v. Heart Solution, PC, 923 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2019). “However, we will vacate the District Court's findings that (1) Heart Solution is estopped from contesting liability and damages for all claims, and (2) Ms. Patel is estopped from contesting liability and damages for the remaining common law claims.”
United States ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837 (3d Cir. 2014). “The court granted AZ’s motion, finding that Schumann’s claims against AZ, like those against BMS, were based on publicly disclosed information and that he was not an original source under the FCA. The court also dismissed Schumann’s claims against AZ with prejudice because it…”
United States ex rel. Anthony v. Burke Eng'g Co., 356 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 5× “The Court holds, on apparent first impression, “the same transaction or occurrence” jurisdiction requirement of the federal False Claims Act ( 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (b)) is broad enough to include a system or scheme of false claims.”
United States ex rel. Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2017). “The District Court had jurisdiction over Petras’s FCA claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .”
Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2002). “Moreover, this Court finds that it is an appropriate venue pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a), which states that ”[a]ny action under section 3730 may be brought in any judicial district in which the defendant .”
Show all 220 citing cases →
31 U.S.C. § 3732(a): 3 cases
United States ex rel. Alexander v. Dyncorp, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C. 1996).
Sunil Garg v. Covanta Holding Corp, 478 F. App'x 736 (3d Cir. 2012).
Hester v. United States, No. 17-1843 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 13, 2018).
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.