No. 21-796

Marchand & Rossi, L.L.P., nka Marchand Law, L.L.P. v. Bryan K. White, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-11-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: false-claims-act first-to-file-rule fraud fraud-prosecution jurisdictional-bar parallel-state-laws qui-tam statutory-interpretation whistleblower
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-04-14 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the FCA first-to-file rule allows dismissal of independently viable claims

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730, includes an interrelated series of provisions intended to incentivize, through monetary awards, private reporting and prosecution of schemes to defraud the United States. The state of Texas has enacted a parallel statutory scheme to protect state interests. Petitioner Marchand Law, L.L.P. investigated a fraudulent scheme and filed a lawsuit on behalf of its “whistleblower” clients pursuant to the FCA and parallel Texas enactment. Unbeknownst to them, another whistleblower previously had initiated a FCA lawsuit regarding a non-intersecting scheme, which had select actors in common, but discrete features and objectives. There was no evidence either set of whistleblowers independently would have discovered or prosecuted both schemes for the benefit of the United States or state of Texas. There moreover was no evidence the United States or Texas would have discovered both schemes based on knowledge of only one. The district court nevertheless dismissed the suit filed by Marchand Law, L.L.P.’s clients based on the FCA “firstto-file’ rule, which the district court treated as a jurisdictional bar to any subsequent federal or state lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed based on circuit precedent. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether the fundamental utility of the FCA—to incentivize private citizen investigation and ii prosecution of fraud against the United States—is jeopardized by precedent that allows dismissal of “second-filed” suits even in the absence of evidence parallel schemes would have been discovered but for the second-filed suits. 2. Whether divergent standards of review utilized by circuits to evaluate first-to-file challenges contributes to lower courts’ failures to allow independently viable FCA claims to proceed on the merits. 3. Whether in the absence of congressional intent, the FCA in any event can displace parallel statelaw whistleblower remedies.

Docket Entries

2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2022-03-18
Reply of petitioner Marchand & Rossi, L.L.P., now known as Marchand Law, L.L.P. filed.
2022-02-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 4, 2022, for all respondents.
2022-02-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 18, 2022 to March 4, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-19
Response Requested. (Due February 18, 2022)
2022-01-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
2021-12-21
Waiver of right of respondent Excel Plus Home Health, Inc. to respond filed.
2021-12-21
Waiver of right of respondent Be Gentle Home Health, Incorporated, doing business as Phoenix Home Health Care to respond filed.
2021-12-16
Waiver of right of respondent Suresh Kumar, R.N. to respond filed.
2021-12-16
Waiver of right of respondent Vinayaka Associates, L.L.C. to respond filed.
2021-12-16
Waiver of right of respondent Bryan White to respond filed.
2021-12-15
Waiver of right of respondents Goodwin Hospice, LLC; Phoenix Hospice, Inc.; International Tutoring Services, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
2021-11-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 30, 2021)

Attorneys

Be Gentle Home Health, Incorporated, doing business as Phoenix Home Health Care
Jeffrey T HallJeffrey T. Hall, Attorney at a Law, Respondent
Jeffrey T HallJeffrey T. Hall, Attorney at a Law, Respondent
Bryan White
Sidney Michael McCollochS. Michael McColloch, PLLC, Respondent
Sidney Michael McCollochS. Michael McColloch, PLLC, Respondent
Excel Plus Home Health, Inc.
Lurese A. TerrellKennedy Attorneys & Counselors at Law, Respondent
Lurese A. TerrellKennedy Attorneys & Counselors at Law, Respondent
Goodwin Hospice, LLC; Phoenix Hospice, Inc.; International Tutoring Services, LLC, et al.
Andrew Wade GuthrieHaynes and Boone, LLP, Respondent
Andrew Wade GuthrieHaynes and Boone, LLP, Respondent
Marchand & Rossi, L.L.P., now known as Marchand Law, L.L.P.
Nolan C. KnightMunsch Hardt Kopf and Harr, P.C., Petitioner
Nolan C. KnightMunsch Hardt Kopf and Harr, P.C., Petitioner
Suresh Kumar, R.N.
Dan Calvin Guthrie Jr.Guthrie, Respondent
Dan Calvin Guthrie Jr.Guthrie, Respondent
Vinayaka Associates, L.L.C.
Michael E. ClarkBaker Donelson, Respondent
Michael E. ClarkBaker Donelson, Respondent