Whether the First-to-File Bar of the False Claims Act is jurisdictional

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented for review are: A. WHETHER the en banc Court of Appeals and the panel erred in affirming the District Court’s decisions dismissing Boyd & Associates’ (“B&A”) clients’ claims for lack of jurisdiction under the Firstto-File Bar of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and denying B&A’s requests for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under the FCA and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (“TMFPA”) on the basis of the dismissal, although the clients had settled their claims under those Acts with the Settling Defendants. B. WHETHER the en banc Court of Appeals and the panel erred in affirming the District Court’s decisions denying B&A’s requests for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, based on the District Court’s dismissal of B&A’s clients’ claims for lack of jurisdiction under the FCA’s First-To-File Bar even though the First-To-File Bar does not unequivocally assert a jurisdictional nature as required by this Court’s decisions in Sebelius and Arbaugh. C. WHETHER the en banc Court of Appeals and the panel erred in affirming the District Court’s decisions denying B&A’s requests for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, based on the District Court’s dismissal of B&A’s clients for lack of jurisdiction under the FCA’s First-to-File Bar even though the decision upon which the District Court relied, U.S. ex [ii] rel. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2009), predated the Sebelius intervening authority and reflected no analysis of whether the First-To-File Bar is jurisdictional. D. WHETHER the en banc Court of Appeals and the panel erred in affirming the District Court’s decisions denying B&A’s requests for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, based on the District Court’s dismissal of B&A’s clients for lack of jurisdiction under the FCA’s First-to-File Bar even though the decision upon which the District Court relied, U.S. ex rel. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2009), predated the Carter intervening authority, thus disregarding this Court’s treatment of the First-to-File Bar in Carter where the Court addressed a non-jurisdictional issue before addressing the First-to-File issue. E. WHETHER the en banc Court of Appeals and panel decisions affirming the District Court’s decisions denying B&A’s requests for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, based on the District Court’s dismissal of B&A’s clients for lack of jurisdiction under the FCA’s First-to-File Bar reflect a significant split of authority among the circuits that must be resolved by this Court. [iii] II. PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING Samuel L. Boyd and Boyd & Associates, Petitioners, v. Bryan K. White, M.D., Individually; Be Gentle Home Health, Incorporated, doing business as Phoenix Home Health Care; Suresh Kumar, R.N., Individually; Goodwin Home Health Services, Incorporated; Vinayaka Associates, L.L.C., doing business as A&S Home Health Care; Goodwin Hospice, L.L.C.; North Texas Best Home Healthcare, Incorporated; Excel Plus Home Health, Incorporated; Phoenix Hospice, Incorporated; One Point Home Health Services, L.L.C., formerly known as One Point Home Health, L.L.C.; Home Health Plus, Incorporated; International Tutoring Services, L.L.C., formerly known as International Tutoring Services, Incorporated, doing business as Hospice Plus; Curo Health Services, L.L.C., formerly known as Curo Health Services, Incorporated; and Hospice Plus, L.P. Marchand & Rossi, L.L.P., now known as Marchand Law, L.L.P., United States of America, ex rel,, Kevin Bryan and Franklin Brock Wendt, Respondents. liv] III. PROCEEDINGS BELOW AND