We are all former Government attorneys who work together in a strategic alliance. You benefit from our insider's experience in whistleblower cases. We are the pros in this area of law. You can be confident your case will be handled expertly.
It doesn't matter where you are located. We have the resources to come to you, investigate your case thoroughly and file it in whatever court is best. So regardless of where you are located or where the investigation may lead, we can handle your matter..
Rest assured. Every initial consultation with us is highly confidential. Your identity and the information you provide will be safeguarded and protected. It won't be disclosed to anyone without your knowledge and authorization.
Qui Tam Law
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
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dismissed relators’ superseded claims.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lack of standing because it was “superseded in its entirety by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).