United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York

Last updated

United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 21, 2009
Decided June 8, 2009
Full case nameUnited States ex rel. Irwin Eisenstein v. City of New York, New York, et al.
Docket no. 08-660
Citations556 U.S. 928 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 2230; 173 L. Ed. 2d 1255
Holding
Where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must file an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Decision of the appeals court affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinion
MajorityThomas, joined unanimously
Laws applied
False Claims Act

United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York , 556 U.S. 928 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that where the Government has not intervened or actively participated, private plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must file an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed, according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. [1]

Contents

Background

The Eisenstein case arose out of New York City's decision to require government employees who do not live in the City to pay a fee equivalent to the municipal income taxes paid by employees who do live there. Irwin Eisenstein and four other city employees who do not live in New York sued the city, pro se (i.e., representing themselves without being represented by attorneys), alleging that the policy violated – among other things – the federal False Claims Act, which imposes civil liability on any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government . . . a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” The False Claims Act is unique because, while the federal government is always the "real party in interest" (as the one allegedly being defrauded), the statute allows a private plaintiff (known as a "relator" under the FCA) to sue qui tam (on the government's behalf) since the relator is "partially assigned" part of the government's legal injury. [2]

The False Claims Act provides:

(b) Actions by private persons … (1) A person may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 [31 U.S.C. § 3729] for the person and for the United States Government. The action shall be brought in the name of the Government.

—  31 U.S.C.   § 3730

Despite this provision, the United States does not need to participate in False Claims Act litigation. After conducting an investigation, the government may choose to intervene and take over the litigation. However, even if it decides not to do so, the FCA statute provides the government a right to be involved in the action and to receive a majority share of any monetary recovery. The government also has a right to intervene later, if it can show good cause for doing this. Where the government does not intervene, the False Claims Act provides the government a right to receive copies of the parties' pleadings and deposition transcripts (rights usually reserved for parties to a suit).

The district court dismissed Eisenstein's claim for failure to state a claim and entered final judgment in favor of the City of New York. Eisenstein filed notice of appeal from that judgment 54 days later. Six months after Eisenstein filed his notice of appeal, the Second Circuit ordered the parties to brief the issue of what time limit for filing the notice of appeal applied in this case, where the action was conducted in the name of the United States but the government had declined to intervene. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) gives a party 30 days to appeal in a civil case, but the rule gives “any party” 60 days to appeal when the United States is a party to the action. The City of New York later filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

The Second Circuit concluded that because the United States was not a “party” to the action, the special FRAP 60-day time limit did not apply. Therefore, it dismissed the appeal as untimely. [3]

Case

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the petition for certiorari, allowing it to review the case, in January 2009.

The petitioner (Eisenstein & co.) argued that the government was considered both a "party in interest" and a "party" under the FCA statute. [4] As a result, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure would have allowed petitioners 60 days to file their appeal, and the Second Circuit would likely have been found to have had jurisdiction to hear their appeal.

The respondent (the City of New York) argued that only individuals or entities that actually participate in and control the qui tam litigation can qualify as “parties” to an action. Because the Government neither intervened nor participated in the qui tam action, and it could not have appealed the decision without first seeking leave to do so, the respondents argued that the 30 day time limit set out in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should apply. [5]

Three amicus briefs were filed in the case as well. [6] [7] [8]

Oral arguments indicated that Congress provided no express answer within the False Claims Act text or legislative history regarding whether the United States should be considered a "party" to a qui tam action when it declines to intervene. As both parties pointed out, a qui tam action is unique and the government has unique rights, even when it declines to intervene; it is not a stranger to the litigation. By the terms of the statute, the government is the "real party in interest" in an FCA suit. The United States is also named in the caption of the case, and it receives the bulk of any monetary recovery. In sum, the United States bears some of the characteristics of a party and some characteristics of a non-party. [9]

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous Court, holding that the FRAP 30-day time limit applies to a private relator's claim under the False Claims Act where the government has not intervened. Thus, the Court affirmed the Second Circuit's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the dismissal of the private parties' suit against New York since the appeal had been filed in an untimely manner.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False Claims Act of 1863</span> United States federal anti-fraud law

The False Claims Act of 1863 (FCA) is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ through which private individuals who assist a prosecution can receive for themselves all or part of the damages or financial penalties recovered by the government as a result of the prosecution. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "[he] who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself."

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), is a seminal United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the work-product doctrine, which holds that information obtained or produced by or for attorneys in anticipation of litigation may be protected from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's decision in the case was unanimous.

Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC is a US plaintiffs' law firm, established in 1965 and based in New York City. It has mounted many class action cases on behalf of investors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Rost (doctor)</span>

Peter Rost is an American former drug marketing executive who is most known for taking public stances critical of the pharmaceutical industry as an "insider" and whistleblower. He sued his last two pharmaceutical employers, Wyeth and Pfizer, the latter of which fired him in 2005. At Wyeth, he uncovered tax evasion practices, and after informing senior company executives, was transferred from Sweden to a post in New Jersey. Rost sued the company, saying that the transfer was a retaliatory demotion, though the company said it was a promotion. Rost settled with Wyeth for an undisclosed amount in 2003. At Pfizer, Rost filed a qui tam suit disclosing off-label marketing of Genotropin at Pharmacia prior to its purchase by Pfizer. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to join in Rost's suit as the marketing violations had already been disclosed to the Department by Pfizer. Rost was eventually fired by Pfizer, and sued for wrongful dismissal, but this lawsuit was summarily dismissed by the court based on evidence that Pfizer had decided to fire Rost prior to discovery of his whistleblowing activities. Since then, Rost has worked outside the pharmaceutical industry, as a public speaker, blogger, writer, and litigation consultant.

Al Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention as enemy combatants of Guantanamo detainees. It was consolidated with Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which is the lead name of the decision.

James Hoyer, P.A. is a Tampa, Florida-based law firm that focuses on whistleblower cases as well as consumer class action lawsuits. In 2015, the firm was named Whistleblower Lawyers of the Year by the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund.

Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must prove that the false claim was made with the specific intent of inducing the government to pay or approve payment of a false or fraudulent claim, rather than merely defrauding a contractor. Congress overruled this decision with the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.

Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court examined the "original source" exception to the "public-disclosure" bar of the False Claims Act. The Court held that (1) the original source requirement of the FCA provision setting for the original-source exception to the public-disclosure bar on federal-court jurisdiction is jurisdictional; (2) the statutory phrase "information on which the allegations are based" refers to the relator's allegations and not the publicly disclosed allegations; the terms "allegations" is not limited to the allegations in the original complaint, but includes, at a minimum, the allegations in the original complaint as amended; (3) relator's knowledge with respect to the pondcrete fell short of the direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based required for him to qualify as an original source; and (4) the government's intervention did not provide an independent basis of jurisdiction with respect to the relator.

A private attorney general or public interest lawyer is an informal term originating in common law jurisdictions for a private attorney who brings a lawsuit claiming it to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff, on behalf of a citizen or group of citizens. The attorney may, at the equitable discretion of the court, be entitled to recover attorney's fees if they prevail. The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private attorneys to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large. Private attorney general suits are commonly, though not always, brought as class actions in jurisdictions that permit the certification of class action lawsuits.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a plaintiff can state a claim for securities fraud under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2010), based on a pharmaceutical company's failure to disclose reports of adverse events associated with a product if the reports do not find statistically significant evidence that the adverse effects may be caused by the use of the product. In a 9–0 opinion delivered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the respondents, plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., and three Matrixx executives, had stated a claim under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148 (1964), was a Supreme Court case that held that pre-trial appeals may be made on non-final issues if the trial judge, in his discretion, certifies a question of controlling law to the appellate court and the appellate court allows the appeal.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the consequences of violating the False Claims Act's requirement that cases be kept under seal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that a violation of the False Claim Act's seal requirement does not require the dismissal of a complaint.

A civil investigative demand (CID) is a discovery tool used by a number of executive agencies in the United States to obtain information relevant to an investigation. By contrast with other discovery mechanisms, CIDs are typically issued before a complaint has been filed by the government in order to commence a lawsuit against the recipient of the CID. CIDs are considered a type of administrative subpoena.

598 U.S. 175 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the statutory review schemes set out in the [[Securities Exchange do not displace a district court's federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.

United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a qui tam action filed under the False Claims Act, the United States may move to dismiss whenever it has intervened — whether during the seal period or later on. In assessing a motion to dismiss an FCA action over a relator's objection, district courts should apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits in ordinary civil litigation.

References

  1. ↑ United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009).
  2. ↑ See Nathan D. Sturycz, The King and I?: An Examination of the Interest Qui Tam Relators Represent and the Implications for Future False Claims Act Litigation, 28 St. Louis Pub. L. Rev. 459 (2009), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=1537749
  3. ↑ Text of Second Circuit Opinion http://www.precydent.com/OriginalVersion/06-3329-cv.pdf?id=345879
  4. ↑ Briefs of Petitioner http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-660_Petitioner.pdf; http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-660_PetitionerReply.pdf
  5. ↑ Brief of Respondent http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-660_Respondent.pdf
  6. ↑ Brief for Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund in Support of Petitioner http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-660_PetitionerAmCuTAF.pdf
  7. ↑ Brief for Patricia Haight and In Defense of Animals in Support of Petitioner http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-660_PetitionerAmCuPHaightandInDefenseofAnimals.pdf
  8. ↑ Brief for the United States of America in Support of Respondent http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-660_RespondentAmCuUSA.pdf
  9. ↑ Oral Argument Transcript https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-660.pdf
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.