Qui Tam Law

However, a relator’s initial complaint continues to be the operative complaint for all non-intervened claims and relators remain a party to the Government’s intervened claims and continue to have rights to participate in those claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(1) and to receive any relator’s recovery permitted by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), subject to the limitations of the FCA and the facts and circumstances a particular case. Defendants can only 19 seek to have the Court limit relators’ participation pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(D). Most other courts that have addressed this issue have dismissed relators’ superseded claims. See, e.g. Feldman, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 649 (dismissing relator’s amended complaint for lack of standing because it was “superseded in its entirety by the Government’s Amended Complaint”); United States ex rel Magee v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 09-324, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23295, at *8-*9 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 12, 2010) (same); United States ex rel. Becker v. Tools & Metals, Inc., No. 3:05-CV-0627, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27507, at *6, *17-*19 (N.D. Tex. March 31, 2009); In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., No. 01-12257, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89835, at *17 (D. Mass. Dec. 6, 2007) (“[O]nce the government has intervened, the relator has no separate free-standing FCA cause of action.”) (citing United States ex rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 147 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 1998))); but see United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., No. 10-cv-976, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83313 (D.D.C. June 19, 2014), at *23-*28 (refusing to dismiss relators’ intervened claims on the basis that they no longer had standing because the text of the FCA does not require it).

Phone: 800-777-0356 Email: info@wblteam.com

Confidential Contact

Our e-mail address:


Show Comments