No. 21-1052

United States, ex rel. Jesse Polansky, M.D., M.P.H. v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2022-01-31
Status: Judgment Issued
Type: Paid
Amici (6)Relisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-procedure false-claims-act federal-procedure government-dismissal judicial-conflict qui-tam standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-06-16 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents a clear, recognized, and intractable conflict regarding an important statutory question under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. When a relator files a gui tam action, the FCA puts the government to an initial choice: it “shall” either “(A) proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the Government; or (B) notify the court that it declines to take over the action, in which case the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action.” 31 U.S.C. 37300b)(4). The FCA then specifies the “Rights of the Parties to the Qui Tam Action[]’ based on the government’s initial choice. This case involves the government’s dismissal authority under 31 U.S.C. 3730(¢)(2)(A). The courts are sharply divided over whether, and when, the government can invoke this authority and dismiss a relator’s FCA case after initially “declin[ing] to take over the action.” The Seventh Circuit below held that the government could dismiss the case if it first intervenes and then satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)’s general standard. Other circuits expressly disagree on every single part of that determination. The question presented is: Whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority. (1)

Docket Entries

2023-07-18
Judgment issued.
2023-06-23
Record returned to the U.S.D.C.-Eastern District of Pennsylvania (thumb drive containing sealed materials).
2023-06-16
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1052_fd9g.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Barrett, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
2023-01-05
Record from the U.S.D.C.-Eastern District of Pennsylvania containing sealed materials received and filed electronically.
2022-12-06
Argued. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondent United States: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent Executive Health Resources, Inc.: Mark W. Mosier, Washington, D. C.
2022-11-16
Reply of petitioner United States, ex rel. Jesse Polansky, M.D., M.P.H. filed. (Distributed)
2022-11-08
The record from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit has been electronically filed.
2022-11-07
Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED.
2022-10-28
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit.
2022-10-25
CIRCULATED.
2022-10-24
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
2022-10-24
Brief amicus curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America filed.
2022-10-24
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
2022-10-24
Brief amicus curiae of Advanced Medical Technology Association filed.
2022-10-21
Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General.
2022-10-18
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 6, 2022.
2022-10-17
Brief of respondent Executive Health Resources, Inc. filed.
2022-10-17
Brief of respondent United States filed.
2022-09-02
Brief amicus curiae of Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund filed.
2022-09-02
Brief amicus curiae of Brutus Trading, LLC filed.
2022-08-26
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
2022-08-26
Brief of petitioner United States, ex rel. Jesse Polansky, M.D., M.P.H. filed.
2022-08-03
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 26, 2022. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 17, 2022.
2022-07-28
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
2022-07-28
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, United States, ex rel. Jesse Polansky, M.D., M.P.H.
2022-06-21
Petition GRANTED.
2022-06-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/16/2022.
2022-06-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
2022-05-18
Reply of petitioner United States, ex rel. Jesse Polansky, M.D., M.P.H. filed. (Distributed)
2022-05-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/2/2022.
2022-05-03
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-05-03
Brief of respondent Executive Health Resources, Inc. in opposition filed.
2022-03-24
The motions to extend the time to file a response are granted and the time is further extended to and including May 3, 2022, for all respondents.
2022-03-23
Motion of Executive Health Resources, Inc. to extend the time to file a response from April 1, 2022 to May 3, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-03-23
Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from April 1, 2022 to May 3, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-02-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 1, 2022, for all respondents.
2022-02-18
Motion of respondent Executive Health Resources Inc. to extend the time to file a response from March 2, 2022 to April 1, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-02-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 1, 2022.
2022-02-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 2, 2022 to April 1, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2022)

Attorneys

Advanced Medical Technology Association
Douglas Harry Hallward-DriemeierRopes & Gray, LLP, Amicus
Douglas Harry Hallward-DriemeierRopes & Gray, LLP, Amicus
Brutus Trading, LLC
Patrick Michael McSweeneyMcSweeney, Cynkar & Kachouroff, PLLC, Amicus
Patrick Michael McSweeneyMcSweeney, Cynkar & Kachouroff, PLLC, Amicus
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the American Health Care Association, and the American Hospital Association
Jeffrey S. BucholtzKing & Spalding LLP, Amicus
Jeffrey S. BucholtzKing & Spalding LLP, Amicus
Executive Health Resources, Inc.
Mark W. MosierCovington & Burling, LLP, Respondent
Mark W. MosierCovington & Burling, LLP, Respondent
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
Lucas Cody TownsendGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Amicus
Lucas Cody TownsendGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Amicus
Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund
Tejinder SinghSparacino PLLC, Amicus
Tejinder SinghSparacino PLLC, Amicus
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
United States, ex rel. Jesse Polansky, M.D., M.P.H.
Daniel L. GeyserHaynes and Boone, LLP, Petitioner
Daniel L. GeyserHaynes and Boone, LLP, Petitioner
Washington Legal Foundation
Joshua John FougereSidley Austin LLP, Amicus
Joshua John FougereSidley Austin LLP, Amicus