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. Maryland 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States ex rel. Salomon v. Wolff, 268 F. Supp. 3d 770 (D. Maryland 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 (3rd 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. The 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 (3rd 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 (3rd 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 (3rd 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 (3rd 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 .”

In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litig., 221 F.R.D. 318 (D. Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “He states that in filing a single action in the Western District of Washington against 132 hospitals, he relied in good faith on the 1986 amendments to the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a), 61 which added a special venue provision and relaxed the joinder rules, thus allowing him to…”

United States Ex Rel. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 295 (3rd Cir. 2011). “JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The District Court had jurisdiction over appellants’ FCA claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over appellants’ state law claims under 28 U.”

United States Ex Rel. Whatley v. Eastwick Coll., 657 F. App'x 89 (3rd Cir. 2016). “On the basis of those findings, the District Court dismissed the FAC with prejudice, and denied Whatley’s motion for leave to amend.”

United States v. Robert S. Luce, 873 F.3d 999 (7th Cir. 2017). “The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732 and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 . Our jurisdiction is premised on 28 U.”

United States Ex Rel. Spay v. CVS Caremark Corp., 875 F.3d 746 (3rd Cir. 2017). “JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The District Court had jurisdiction over Spay’s FCA claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .”

United States Ex Rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Child.'s Therapy, LLC, 871 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 1331 and 31 U.S.C. § 3732 . We have jurisdiction under 9 U.”

Gonter v. Hunt Valve Co., Inc., 510 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2007). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). Appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.”

Roland A. Leblanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). Finally, we turn to LeBlanc’s contention that the Court of Federal Claims should have transferred his case to a district court pursuant to 28 U.”

United States v. Southland Gaming of Virgin Islands, Inc., 182 F. Supp. 3d 297 (D.V.I. 2016). · cites it 2× “In his Opposition, Plaintiff cites 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (b) 23 for the proposition that the FCA “expressly provides a means for states and local governments to join a federal False Claims Act case,” but conspicuously leaves “the territories, which are mere instru-mentalities of the…”

USA ex rel. Donald Palmer v. C&D Tech. Inc, 897 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 2018). “§ 1331 and 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”

August Bogina, III v. Medline Indus., Incorpora, 809 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2016). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 . The district judge dismissed the federal claims as being too similar to those in a prior suit against Medline to authorize Bo-gina’s suit.”

Victoria Druding v. Care Alternatives, 952 F.3d 89 (3rd Cir. 2020). “§ 1331 and 31 U.S.C. § 3732 , and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”

Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc., 516 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “The provision of the False Claims Act that brought the State of Wisconsin’s suit within the original jurisdiction of the federal courts, 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (b), provides that “the district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought under the laws of any State for the…”

Scott v. Metro. Health Corp., 234 F. App'x 341 (6th Cir. 2007). “§ 1331 , and venue was proper in the Western District of Michigan under the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”

United States Ex Rel. Matheny v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 671 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2012). “§ 1331 and 31 U.S.C. § 3732 . 7 . In 2009, Congress amended and renumbered sections of the FCA.”

United States Ex Rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a); see also United States v.”

United States v. Bourseau, 531 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). “§ 1345 ; 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a); Universal Life Church v.”

Bailey v. Shell W. E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2010). “31 U.S.C. §§ 3732 (a), 3730(b)(5). Shell filed this lawsuit in Texas state court in 1998, Bailey and Ptasynski filed the Colorado lawsuit alleging qui tam claims in April 2004, and Bailey added qui tam counterclaims in this case in November 2004.”

United States Ex Rel. Zizic v. Q2Administrators, LLC, 728 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2013). “The District Court, after holding a hearing, granted the motions to dismiss the complaint, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because the allegations against Q2A and RTS were based on public disclosures, and because Zizic was not an original source of that information. 5…”

Jesse Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources Inc, 17 F.4th 376 (3rd Cir. 2021). “JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , and we have jurisdic- tion pursuant to 28 U.”

United States ex rel. Bartlett v. Ashcroft, 39 F. Supp. 3d 656 (W.D. Pa. 2014). · cites it 2× “Jurisdiction The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .”

United States v. Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808 (5th Cir. 2011). “§§ 1331 , 1345, and 1367, as well as 31 U.S.C. § 3732 . We have jurisdiction over the Government’s appeal of the final judgment pursuant to 28 U.”

United States ex rel. Ortiz v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 169 F. Supp. 3d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “§ 192 (1), but the FCA permits a federal district court to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims only insofar as they involve "the same transaction or occurrence as an action brought under [the FCA]” 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (b), See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) (federal supplemental…”

United States v. Rogan, 459 F. Supp. 2d 692 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “…conferred upon this Court by 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 (e), 3732(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345; and venue is proper under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c). Stark Statute Enacted as amendments to the Social Security Act, the Stark Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn,…”

Giles v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 335 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 3× “Jurisdiction over qui tam actions is conferred by 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). That subsection provides: 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,…”

Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), 543 B.R. 127 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016). “31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). Therefore, the first requirement is easily met, S.”

Weih Chang v. Childrens Advocacy Ctr. of D, 938 F.3d 384 (3rd Cir. 2019). “§§ 1331 and 1367, and 31 U.S.C. § 3732 . We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.”

United States of Am., Ex Rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud & Chester L. Walsh v. Gen. Elec. Co., 41 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 1995). “31 U.S.C. § 3732 (a). . The term in quotations is significant.”

United States ex rel. Dickson v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., 123 F. Supp. 3d 584 (D.N.J. 2015). · cites it 2×

New York v. Amgen Inc., 652 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2011).

Schweitzer v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 592 (Fed. Cl. 2008).

United States Ex Rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., 51 F. Supp. 3d 9 (D.D.C. 2014).

In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 509 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2007). · cites it 5×

Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 44,090 Stinson, Lyons & Bustamante, P.A. v. United States, 79 F.3d 136 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

United States Ex Rel. Vallejo v. Investronica, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 330 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). · cites it 2×

Driscoll v. Superior Court, 37 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1069 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2×

Giles v. United States, 233 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 4×

United States ex rel. Dickson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Practice & Prods. Liab. Litig. (NO. II)), 332 F. Supp. 3d 927 (D.N.J. 2017).

United States v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 156 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir. 1998).

United States Ex Rel. Heineman-Guta v. Guidant Corp., 718 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2013).

United States Ex Rel. Hood v. Satory Global, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2013).

United States v. St. Joseph's Reg'l Health Ctr., 240 F. Supp. 2d 882 (W.D. Ark. 2002). · cites it 3×

United States v. Intrados/Int'l Mgmt. Grp., 265 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002).

United States Ex Rel. Thomas v. Siemens AG, 593 F. App'x 139 (3rd Cir. 2014).

United States Ex Rel. Grand v. Northrop Corp., 811 F. Supp. 330 (S.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 3×

United States ex rel. Palmieri v. Alpharma, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 840 (D. Maryland 2013).

Shaw v. AAA Eng'g & Drafting Inc., 138 F. App'x 62 (10th Cir. 2005).

United States Ex Rel. Long v. SCS Bus. & Technical Inst., Inc., 173 F.3d 870 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

United States v. Universal Fruits & Vegetables Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 4×

Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d 655 (W.D. Wis. 2007). · cites it 4×

Commonwealth v. S. Bay Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 334 F. Supp. 3d 394 (D.D.C. 2018).

United States Ex Rel. Alexander v. Dyncorp, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C. 1996). “31 U.S.C.A § 3732(a) (1994). Defendants’ argument that § 3732(a) should be limited to suits by the government fails, because it conflicts with the statutory language of the FCA.”

Nickerson v. E.I.L. Instruments, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App. 1994). · cites it 2×

Soni v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D. Mass. 2009).

United States v. Sequel Contractors, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

United States ex rel. Bartlett v. Tyrone Hosp., Inc., 234 F.R.D. 113 (W.D. Pa. 2006).

United States ex rel. Felton v. Allflex USA, Inc., 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 2×

United States Ex Rel. Schmidt v. Zimmer, Inc., 386 F.3d 235 (3rd Cir. 2004).

United States ex rel. Rosales v. San Francisco Hous. Auth., 173 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

United States Ex Rel. Schneider v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 224 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2016).

United States ex rel. Coyne v. Amgen, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 3d 159 (E.D.N.Y 2017).

United States Ex Rel. Pilecki-Simko v. Chubb Inst., 443 F. App'x 754 (3rd Cir. 2011).

United States v. Deming Hosp. Corp., 992 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D.N.M. 2013).

United States Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Palumbo Bros., 797 F. Supp. 624 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

United States v. Merck & Co., 44 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

In re DRC, Inc., 358 F. App'x 193 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

United States Ex Rel. Hill v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry, 448 F. App'x 314 (3rd Cir. 2011).

United States v. Universal Fruits & Vegetables Corp. David Pai, AKA Shih Wei Pai Jason Pai, AKA Chung Sheng Pai, 370 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pickens v. Kanawha River Towing, 916 F. Supp. 702 (S.D. Ohio 1996).

United States ex rel. Budike v. Peco Energy, 897 F. Supp. 2d 300 (E.D. Pa. 2012).

United States ex rel. Knisely v. Cintas Corp., 298 F.R.D. 229 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

United States v. Quicken Loans Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 272 (D.D.C. 2016).

United States v. Universal Fruits & Vegetables Corp. David Pai, AKA Shih Wei Pai Jason Pai, AKA Chung Sheng Pai, 362 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2004).

Sunil Garg v. Covanta Holding Corp, 478 F. App'x 736 (3rd Cir. 2012). “Having dismissed Garg’s federal cause of action, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Garg’s claim under the New Jersey False Claims Act.”

United States ex. rel. Thistlethwaite v. Dowty Woodville Polymer, Ltd., 110 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 1997). · cites it 2×

Wisz v. C/hca Dev., Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Ill. 1998).

United States Ex Rel. McCarthy v. Straub Clinic & Hosp., Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Haw. 2001).

United States Ex Rel. Quinn v. Omnicare Inc., 382 F.3d 432 (3rd Cir. 2004).

United States v. Hawley, 812 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Iowa 2011).

Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Ohio 2001).

State of Hawaii v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d 835 (D. Haw. 2006).

United States Ex Rel. Trim v. McKean, 31 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (W.D. Okla. 1998).

United States Ex Rel. Thistlethwaite v. Dowty Woodville Polymer, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

United States Dep't of Transp. Ex Rel. Arnold v. CMC Eng'g, 567 F. App'x 166 (3rd Cir. 2014).

United States ex rel. Sandager v. Dell Mktg., L.P., 872 F. Supp. 2d 801 (D. Minnesota 2012).

United States ex rel. Stevens v. Vermont Agency of Nat. Resources, 162 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998).

United States ex rel. Price v. Peters, 66 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (C.D. Ill. 2013). · cites it 2×

Abbott v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D. Tex. 2011).

Schirripa v. United States, 570 F. App'x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

United States v. Ettrick Wood Prods., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 544 (W.D. Wis. 1988).

United States ex rel. Thistlethwaite v. Dowty Woodville Polymer Ltd., 911 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

United States ex rel. Virani v. Jerry M. Lewis Truck Parts & Equip., Inc., 89 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 1996).

United States Ex Rel. Health Outcomes Tech. v. Hallmark Health Sys., Inc., 409 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D. Mass. 2006).

United States ex rel. Garcia v. Novartis AG, 91 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D. Mass. 2015).

In Re Pharm. Ind. Aver. Wholesale Price, 509 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2007). · cites it 5×

United States v. Whyte, 229 F. Supp. 3d 484 (W.D. Va. 2017).

United States ex rel. Sutton v. Double Day Off. Servs., Inc., 121 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 1997).

United States ex rel. Paul v. Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 370 (S.D. Tex. 1994).

Vessell v. DPS Assocs. of Charleston, Inc., 148 F.3d 407 (4th Cir. 1998).

U.S. Ex Rel. Jane Doe v. Heart Solution, PC, 918 F.3d 300 (3rd Cir. 2019).

Bell v. Cross (M.D. Fla. 2019). · cites it 3×

United States of Am. & State of New York, ex rel. Patrick Donohue v. Richard Carranza, et.al. (S.D.N.Y. 2022). · cites it 3×

UNITED STATES OF Am., ex rel. Caleb Hernandez & Jason Whaley, Relators v. Team Health Holdings, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2019). · cites it 3×

Sargent v. Mcdonough (D. Me. 2024). · cites it 3×

United States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 736 F. Supp. 614 (D.N.J. 1990).

Jones v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). · cites it 2×

Permenter v. Eclinical Works LLC (M.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2×

Ling v. Pharmacy Alternatives, LLC (D. Kan. 2022). · cites it 2×

Higgins v. Boston Sci. Corp. (D. Minnesota 2018). · cites it 2×

Armstrong v. Andover Subacute & Rehab Ctr. Servs. One, Inc. (D.N.J. 2019). · cites it 2×

Curcio v. Ccs Med., Inc. (D.N.J. 2023). · cites it 2×

Knight v. Stand. Chartered Bank (S.D.N.Y. 2021). · cites it 2×

United States of Am. ex rel. Matthew Thomas, Jr. v. Premier Home Health Care Servs., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2025). · cites it 2×

Us Ex Rel. Rosales v. San Fran. Hous. Author., 173 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

United States of Am. v. Second Chance Body Armor Inc (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2×

State of Wisconsin v. Dey, Inc. (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2×

Hamilton Sec. Advisory Servs., Inc. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 161 (Fed. Cl. 2004). · cites it 2×

US EX REL. STINSON v. Prudential Ins., 736 F. Supp. 614 (D.N.J. 1990).

US Ex Rel. Paul v. PBQ&D, 860 F. Supp. 370 (S.D. Tex. 1994).

United States v. Quicken Loans Inc. (D.D.C. 2016).

Jones v. United States, 682 F. App'x 930 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Bigelow v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).

Hester v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “31U.S.C.§3732(a); see also LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.”

Ronald Streck v. Allergan Inc (3rd Cir. 2018).

Cockerham v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).

Schneider v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n (D.D.C. 2019).

Kandakai v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).

Agarwal v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2019).

United States v. Medco Health Solutions Inc (3rd Cir. 2019).

Gulan v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).

Jane Doe v. Janssen Therapeutics (3rd Cir. 2019).

Adams v. Dell Comput. Corp. (D.D.C. 2020).

Morgan v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).

Bid Solve, Inc. v. Cws Mktg. Grp., Inc. (D.D.C. 2021).

Chris O'Bier v. TidalHealth Nanticoke Inc (3rd Cir. 2022).

May v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).

United States v. Child.'s Advocacy Ctr. of Delaware, 230 F. Supp. 3d 354 (D. Del. 2017).

In re Syntax-Brillian Corp., 554 B.R. 323 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016).

Levi v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023).

May v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Parrott v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2023).

May v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Zachary Silbersher v. Dr. Falk Pharma Gmbh (9th Cir. 2023).

Los Angeles Cnty. v. Thomas Shepos (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Silbersher v. Valeant Pharm. Int'l, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Harris v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Southard v. Kipper Tool Co. (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Kitzel v. Tunnell Gov't Servs. Inc (M.D. Fla. 2023).

United States of Am. v. Roseland Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n (N.D. Ill. 2023).

Christine Martino-Fleming v. South Bay Mental Health Centers (D. Mass. 2018).

Fadlalla v. Dyncorp Int'l LLC (D. Maryland 2019).

Maharaj v. The Est. of Charles Howard Zimmerman (D. Maryland 2019).

Maharaj v. The Est. of Charles Howard Zimmerman (D. Maryland 2020).

Sheldon v. Forest Labs., LLC (D. Maryland 2020).

Sheldon v. Forest Labs., LLC (D. Maryland 2021).

United States v. Vision Quest Indus., Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021).

Stevenson v. Mercy Clinic East Communities (E.D. Mo. 2020).

Armstrong v. Andover Subacute & Rehab Ctr. Servs. One, Inc. (D.N.J. 2020).

Franchitti v. Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. (D.N.J. 2021).

United States of Am. v. Johnson & Johnson (D.N.J. 2021).

Sandoval v. Midland Funding, LLC (D.N.J. 2022).

Cato v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. (D.N.J. 2022).

Fedway Assocs., Inc. v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union Local 1-d, Ufcw (D.N.J. 2022).

Carroll v. Hackensack Meridian Pascack Valley Med. Ctr. (D.N.J. 2023).

Bennett v. Bayer Corp. (D.N.J. 2024).

United States v. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC (E.D.N.Y 2023).

United States of Am. v. U.S. Oncology, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2023).

State Of New York v. Skanska (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

USA ex rel Mohajer (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

United States of Am. ex rel. TZAC, Inc. v. Christian Aid (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Alwand Vahan Jewelry, Ltd. v.Lustour, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Nhca-tev, LLC v. Teva Pharm. Prods. Ltd. (E.D. Pa. 2019).

United States v. WARREN (E.D. Pa. 2022).

United States v. Harbit (D.S.C. 2021).

United States of Am. v. Remain at Home Senior Care LLC (D.S.C. 2021).

UNITED STATES OF Am., ex rel. Caleb Hernandez & Jason Whaley, Relators v. Team Health Holdings, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2020).

Stephen Krahling v. Merck & Co Inc (3rd Cir. 2024).

(PC)Vera v. Warden (E.D. Cal. 2024).

United States of Am. v. Detroit, City of (E.D. Mich. 2024).

United States of Am. v.The Sporn Co. Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Angulo v. Providence Health & Servs. Washington (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Keith v. State of Wisconsin Off. of Sec'y of State (E.D. Wis. 2024).

United States v. Sanjay Bharti,et al (N.D.W. Va. 2023).

Shannon v. Penn State Health (E.D. Pa. 2025).

John Collado v. Bracco USA Inc (3rd Cir. 2025).

Kenley Emergency Med. v. The Schumacher Grp. of Louisiana (N.D. Cal. 2025).

United States v. Detroit, City of (E.D. Mich. 2025).

United States of Am. ex rel. Lamontay Ayers v. City of Indianapolis-Marion Cnty. (S.D. Ind. 2025).

Parrott v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Deweese v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026).

United States v. Ma (5th Cir. 2026).

John Hendrix v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc., 76 F.4th 1164 (9th Cir. 2023).

United States v. Caremark, Inc. (5th Cir. 2011).

Gossett v. Byron Prods., Inc., 407 F. Supp. 2d 918 (S.D. Ohio 2005).

Pub. Warehousing Co. K.S.C. (A.S.B.C.A. 2014).

Gonter v. Hunt Valve Co. (6th Cir. 2007).

Lucas Matheny v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (11th Cir. 2012).

United States v. Bourseau (9th Cir. 2008).

United States ex rel. De Souza v. AstraZeneca PLC, 72 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Del. 2014).

United States ex rel. Lobel v. Express Scripts, Inc., 351 F. App'x 778 (3rd Cir. 2009).

In re DRC, Inc., 358 F. App'x 193 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

De Carlo v. United States, 154 F. App'x 919 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

United States ex rel. Finks v. Huda, 205 F.R.D. 225 (S.D. Ill. 2001).

— 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) — 3 cases

Hester v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “31U.S.C.§3732(a); see also LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.”

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.