Whether the False Claims Act statutes preclude established standards of Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 56 in a default/summary judgment conclusion

QUESTION PRESENTED This question arises from the district court’ failure to act on/decide/ respond to a motion for summary judgment filed in this matter, March 20, 2020. Petitioner seeks this extraordinary relief from the court’s subsequent order / option, dated June 29, 2020 that dismissed the case. Petitioner’ motion for summary judgment relied on Federal Rules in civil procedures, specifically FR. Civ.P. Rules 56 and 12 and on precedent set in Nolte v. Nannino, 107 N.J.L. 462 154 A. 831(1931). Where, as of the date the motion for summary judgment, neither defendant contested the claims in prescribed procedural allowances, that is, serve an answer to the complaint within 21 days of the summons served, neither defendant answered the complaint. Defendant, RWJ Barnabas filed no answer, and defendant, St. Joseph’s served no answer on plaintiff, federal rules of civil procedure conclude summary/default judgment for plaintiff. Court regulation expressly given in the Summons perfected on both defendants on 2/7/20 reads, “Within 21 days after service of this summons on you ... you must serve on the plaintiff an answer or a motion under Rule 12 of the FR.Civ.P. The answer or motion must be served on plaintiff ...if you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.” The order /opinion relies on an argument disallowing plaintiff’s pursuit of damages sustained by the U.S. Government in the False Claims Act claims of the complaint and puts that plaintiff, a pro se litigant, may not pursue third party (the U.S. government here) damages. It must be stressed to the Court that nowhere in the complaint does this argument find footing, and pointedly, the motion for summary judgment had NOTHING whatsoever to do with any damages sustained by the U.S. government. The judgment demand of the complaint motioned for summary decision vis a vis the uncontested claims is all of it, that is 100% of it, calculated for damages sustained by plaintiff. The matter is now before the Court on a petition for rehear of a petition for certiorari to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals requesting Court teaching on allowance in the FCA statutes, 3/ U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 for the other-than-the government pursuit of damages sustained by the of the FCA claims. Congress’ 2009 reforms of the False Claims Act in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) Pub. 111-21, 123 Stat. , 1617 (2009) broadened the FCA claim to include defendant liability to “[an]other recipient of the fraudulent demand for money to the government FERA § 4(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 31 USC § 3729(2)(A)(ii). WHEREFORE, since the trial court did not respond to / failed to adjudicate / did not act on / did not decide petitioner’ summary motion resting on the fact that the complaint is one of FCA claims against defendants, the question presented on petition for writ of mandamus for summary judgment is, Do the False Claims Act statutes 37 USC §§ 3729-3799 preclude established standards of Federal Rules for Civil Procedure Rule 56 in a default/summary judgment conclusion ? i 1