Frcp motion to dismiss11/8/2023 ![]() Polansky advocated for an “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review. After the Court granted review, DOJ argued that it possessed “essentially unfettered discretion to dismiss.” By contrast, Dr. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of the motion, holding that (1) a motion to dismiss implicitly is a motion to intervene, and (2) the standard to rule on a Subparagraph (2)(A) motion to dismiss comes from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41. The District Court granted the motion, determining that DOJ had reached a “valid conclusion based on the results of its investigation” to dismiss the case. Polansky’s objection that DOJ lacked dismissal authority. By 2019, however, DOJ determined that the case’s burdens outweighed its potential value and, thus, moved to dismiss the case under 31 U.S.C. Polansky continued the case, which underwent years of discovery, requiring substantial amounts of documents and testimony from the federal government. While DOJ declined to intervene during the seal period, Dr. Jesse Polansky) filed a qui tam action against Executive Health Resources for allegedly submitting fraudulent claims to the Medicare program. However, if DOJ declines to intervene, the relator may continue the case, but DOJ remains a party in interest. ![]() If it intervenes, DOJ becomes the primary mover and, thus, may later move to dismiss the case. Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Kagan explained that DOJ receives considerable deference, even over the objection of the individual who raised the action ( i.e., the relator or whistleblower), to dismiss cases that are inconsistent with DOJ’s interests.īy way of background, in an FCA suit filed by a relator, DOJ has the right to intervene in the case, usually while the case remains under seal. Polansky is the second FCA case this summer in which the Court has ruled in favor of the federal government- i.e., the Department of Justice, acting through the Attorney General (“DOJ”). Executive Health Resources affirmed the federal government’s power to dismiss a False Claims Act (“FCA”) action brought under the qui tam provisions whenever it chooses to intervene. On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) in United States ex rel. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |