During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

False Claims Act

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Under 31 U.S.C.§ 3730, the government may dismiss a federal False Claims Act case despite the objection of the relator who filed it.  The DC Circuit has held that the executive branch wields unreviewable discretion in choosing to dismiss a False Claims Act suit.  (Swift v. United States (D.C. Cir. 2003) 318 F.3d 250, 252.)  The Ninth Circuit holds that… Read More

The United States chose not to intervene in Thrower's False Claims Act suit, but later filed a motion to dismiss the case.  The district court denied the motion to dismiss because it found the US had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a valid governmental purpose related to the dismissal and because it failed to fully investigate the allegations… Read More

Plaintiff's False Claims Act complaint alleged that all the defendant health insurers submitted false claims using false diagnoses of patients' medical condition from the same vendor, and no further differentiation among the health insurers was needed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) since they all acted the same way. Read More

Plaintiff avoided summary judgment in a False Claims Act suit by showing defendant expressly agreed, as a condition of receiving federal student aid, not to pay incentive compensation to its recruiters, but then violated that agreement and still submitted claims for student aid. Read More

Relators stated an actionable False Claims Act claim for fraud against defendant drug manufacturer, claiming that defendant had obtained a key active ingredient for HIV antiretroviral drugs it sold to the U.S. government from unapproved Chinese factories and that the improperly sourced ingredient was adulterated.  Read More

A federal False Claims Act suit was properly dismissed because the suit was based on facts publicly disclosed in a prior suit and the plaintiff was not the original source of that information, but learned it only as a party to the prior suit.  Read More

Resolution of the underlying lawsuit (here by a settlement) does not automatically moot an appeal by a person who unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the action, so long as effective relief may still potentially be awarded the would-be intervenor. Read More

For purposes of the False Claims Act, plaintiff (a New York Deputy AG) did not fall within the pre-2010 definition of an “original source,” because he had only suspicions—not direct knowledge—of defendant’s fraudulent overcharging of the government for wiretaps, and he disclosed those suspicions in response to a FCC inquiry rather than voluntarily.  Read More

1 2