The Supreme Court recently declined to review the Tenth Circuit’s dismissal of a relator’s claim based on a novel application of the first to file bar. The declination let stand a ruling that: (1) amending a complaint can constitute “intervention” for purposes of the first to file bar; and (2) under most circumstances, “John Doe” or other anonymous plaintiffs cannot be considered “original parties” for purposes of the first to file bar, and that their filing of an amended complaint mandated their treatment as “new” relators who could not file an action based on the same theory as the true “original” relator. This application of the first to file bar to a novel set of circumstances demonstrates the potency of that theory in addressing copycat whistleblower claims brought against health care providers and others under the FCA.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
Mandatory Disclosure Rule Best Practices for Government Contractors • SBA Proposes Rollback of Social Disadvantage Presumption in 8(a) Program • New EO on Customs Enforcement Tightens Import Controls, Aims to Reduce Evasion • New Grant Regulations from OMB • The False Alignment Trap in Compliance Transformation
FCA’s “First to File” Bar Retains Some Teeth
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.