Federal Contracts Report™ delivers concise, authoritative reports covering the complete spectrum of issues affecting the federal acquisition of goods and services, to keep you abreast of policies and...
Nov. 1 — Violating the False Claims Act’s seal requirement shouldn’t automatically result in dismissal of a fraud case against State Farm as punishment, Supreme Court justices suggested Nov. 1 during oral arguments ( State Farm & Fire Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, U.S., No. 15-513, oral arguments 11/1/16 ).
The court indicated support for penalizing violations on a case-by-case basis. Their questioning focused on how automatic dismissals could hinder the government’s ability to combat fraud.
While the justices showed intense interest in petitioner State Farm’s justification for an automatic dismissal rule, they gave respondents’ counsel a little more breathing room to argue for adoption of a discretionary standard instead of dismissing the case over a relatively minor detail.
Some violations may not be serious enough to justify dismissal, said Justice Stephen Breyer, who favored allowing district courts’ discretion over sanctions.
He said courts should ensure a fair penalty by considering factors such as those established by a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision: harm to the government, the relative severity of the disclosure and whether the disclosure was in bad faith.
A jury agreed with FCA plaintiffs that State Farm submitted false claims to the government for payment on flood policies arising out of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs’ media disclosures weren’t severe enough to harm the government, and that dismissal for the seal violation wasn’t necessary.
State Farm petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split on this issue.
Much of the session focused on the government’s role in this dispute, and the extent to which the court should consider the government’s view that an automatic dismissal rule would deprive it of opportunities to combat fraud.
An automatic dismissal rule would protect operation of the FCA, State Farm argued.
However, that argument “rings hollow” if the government doesn’t benefit from the seal requirement, Chief Justice John Roberts said.
The government’s burden in pursuing an FCA case would increase if the plaintiffs were removed from cases, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg added.
When Justices Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan asked why the government shouldn’t have a say in what happens to a case following a seal violation, State Farm pushed back, saying the government often doesn’t know if a seal caused it harm.
State Farm also asked the court to find that the case should be dismissed over the respondents’ bad faith media leak even if the court doesn’t adopt an automatic dismissal rule.
Justice Samuel Alito voiced concern that the court would encourage media leaks if it rejects automatic dismissal; Justice Breyer concurred that seals are important in a variety of cases, aside from the FCA, and that violations are serious.
Although they agreed, respondents asked the court to “be sensitive to the reality” that only the respondents’ prior attorney, Dickie Scruggs, participated in and should be held responsible for the leak.
Scruggs, who e-mailed evidentiary disclosures and engineering reports to several news outlets while the case was under seal, went to prison for bribery in an unrelated matter following a 2008 guilty plea.
Kathleen M. Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP represented petitioner State Farm. Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell P.C. represented the respondents. John F. Bash, assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, represented the government.
To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Seiden in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jerome Ashton at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)