Counsel who regularly defend False
Claims Act (FCA) cases often encounter “statements of interest” filed by the
government in non-intervened FCA cases. Though not a party to the case since it
has declined to intervene, the government files these advisory pleadings to
argue its interpretation or position
on some issue of the False Claims Act, frequently to the detriment of the
defendant’s position.
For example, in US ex rel Nevyas v. Allergan, Inc., Dkt 66, Case No. 2:09-CV-432 (E.D.
Pa), we see a typical example of a government statement of interest. In Allergan, the defendant moved to dismiss
the relator’s second amended complaint in a non-intervened FCA case, and
challenged the relator’s claim that it violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42
USC §1320a-7b(b) (AKS). Presumably, the
relator’s response to the motion to dismiss was not adequate in the eyes of the
government because the government filed its statement of interest to address
“an argument” raised in the defendant’s motion to dismiss with which it
disagreed. Claiming it “has a keen
interest in the interpretation of [the FCA and the AKS],” the government
submitted its statement of interest to “refute [Defendant’s] argument that the
Court should narrowly construe the AKS.”
For its authority as a non-party to
submit a brief, the government in Allergan
relied on 28 USC § 517 and the fact that it “remains a real party in interest
in this matter.” Section 517 does not reference statements of interest or
filing briefs on behalf of the United States; rather, it only provides:
The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State
or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United
States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a
State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.
As in Allergan, district courts rarely refuse the government permission to file statements of interest in FCA cases.
One court in the Middle District of
Florida apparently has had enough of these statements of interest. In the last
few months, the Court issued two orders refusing the government’s request to
file statements of interest. The Court’s
opinion in US ex rel Ruckh v. SalusRehabilitation, 2017 WL 1495862 (M.D. Fla. 4/26/2107) is most instructive. In
that non-intervened case, after “years of discovery” the relator prevailed
after a six week trial and obtained a “spectacular result.” After the
defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and the relator filed its
opposition, the government sought to file a statement of interest. Calling it a
“euphemism for an advocate’s brief,” the Court refused. It explained its
reasons as follows:
· Section
517 “says nothing” about a statement of interest in a qui tam or otherwise and “nothing about Section 517 supports an
intent to create in the Solicitor General the right to appear and submit
argument in any case in which the United States articulates a generic interest
in the ‘development’ and the ‘correct application’ of the law.”
· “The
clarity with which Congress establishes elsewhere the right to participate in
an action belies the assumption that Congress conceals in an organizational
chapter the purported right to submit a ‘statement of interest’ and to
intervene-in-fact without formally intervening in accord with the False Claims
Act.”
· The
government’s request “fails to identify an interest inadequately protected by
the relator.”
·
As
to the government’s argument that it asserts a “specific interest in . . . the development
of law applicable to complex FCA cases,” the Court noted that the government
“presumedly maintains an enlivened interest in the development of all federal
law, and little if anything, distinguishes this action from all the others . .
. . . Understanding a party’s interest
in money requires no additional briefing.”
· Section
517 appears “inapplicable” in an FCA case since the government declined to
intervene. Section 3730(c)(3) of the FCA
“specifically limits the [government’s] participation” and . . . . . invoking
Section 517 to proffer argument about the interpretation of the False Claims
Act impermissibly circumvents the narrow role prescribed in Section 3730(c)(3).”
Relying on its decision in Ruckh, the Court rejected the
government’s attempt to file a statement of interest in response to several of
the defendants’ motion to dismiss arguments in another case: US ex rel McFarland v. Florida PharmacySolutions, Dkt 310, Case No.8:15-cv-178-T-23 (M.D. Fla.). The Court’s Order
also rejected the government’s alternative argument that it be permitted to
file an amicus curiae brief. Noting that the government remains the
“remain party in interest” in a qui tam
case, the Court denied the government’s request “[b]ecause a party may not
gratuitously compound the papers by submitting an amicus curiae brief.”
Hopefully, the Court’s opinions in Ruckh and McFarland will prompt other courts to more carefully consider
whether additional briefing by the government in non-intervened cases is in
fact warranted and necessary.
A.
Brian Albritton
July
23, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment