HCBA Lawyer Magazine Vol. 29, No. 1 | Seite 40

fAlse ClAiMs And reAl deAdlines
construction law section
Chairs: J. Derek Kantaskas – Cotney Construction Law, LLP & Gregg E. Hutt – Trenam Law
for the time being,
the Hunt opinion will have
a profound effect on future
qui tam actions and a
A
private citizen’s ability to
bring such lawsuits under
recent case out of
the Eleventh Circuit,
US ex rel Hunt v.
Cochise Consultancy,
Inc., 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir.
2018), highlights a decades-long
jurisdictional conflict surrounding
the False Claims Act, while at the
same time providing a great primer
on the Act.
The “False Claims Act,” 31
U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, authorizes
prosecution of individuals and
companies who conspire to or
commit fraud to receive federal
funding. Section 3730 of the False
Claims Act provides three distinct
procedural mechanisms through
which suit may be brought against
an alleged violator: (1) the Attorney
General may personally file the
suit, (2) a private plaintiff (the
“relator”) may bring a qui tam
action in the name of the United
States, also known as the “whistle -
blower” provision, or (3) an
individual suit may be brought by
an employee whose employer has
the false Claims Act.
© Can Stock Photo / djedzura
retaliated against him or her for
helping the government in a False
Claims Act investigation.
Under the second scenario, the
relator files a sealed lawsuit with
the Attorney General, outlining
the basis for the alleged violation.
The Attorney General decides
whether to “intervene” in the
suit (and thus become the primary
litigator) or to not intervene,
which allows the relator to
continue litigation as a “self-
appointed private attorney
general” without the resources
of the Attorney General’s office.
An action under the False Claims
Act must be brought within the
later of either six years after the
date on which the violation was
committed, or within three years
after the date when facts arose
such that the government official
should have known about the
violator, but in no event more
than ten years after the date on
which the violation was committed
(“statute of repose”).
In Hunt, the relator filed his
claim more than six years after the
alleged violations, but within three
years of when he first informed the
government of the facts giving rise
to the claim. Thus, the issue was
whether the three-year extension
in § 3731(b)(2) applied to cases
where the government has declined
to intervene. Hunt, the former
employee, brought the action
seven years after discovering the
scheme while working for the
defense contractor in Iraq. After
the Attorney General declined
to intervene, Hunt continued
litigation. The contractor moved to
dismiss, arguing that the three-year
statute of repose only applied
where the Government intervened,
Continued on page 39
2018-19 Construction section event dates:
• september 20 ................ Cle luncheon
• october 18 ...................... Cle luncheon
• november 15 .................. Cle luncheon
• december 13 .................... Holiday party
38
• January 24 ...................... Cle luncheon
• february 27 ...................... Half-day Cle
• March 21 ........................ Cle luncheon
• April 18............................ Cle luncheon
• May 16 ............................ Cle luncheon
SEPT - OCT 2018
|
HCBA LAWYER