Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappeal
defendantstatuteappeal

Related Cases

Fike v. Grant, 39 Ariz. 549, 8 P.2d 242
View Case »
Levine v. Levine, 734 So.2d 1191, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1568
View Case »
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624
View Case »
Lattanzio v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 476 F.3d 147, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,150
View Case »
Stein v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 425 (Mem), 211 L.Ed.2d 251
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States ex rel. Weiner v. Siemens AG, 87 F.4th 157, 117 Fed.R.Serv.3d 798

Facts

Relator Clifford Weiner filed a qui tam action on February 23, 2012, alleging that Defendants made misrepresentations to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection to have their claims paid by the United States. The complaint was filed in camera and remained under seal for a preliminary period of sixty days. After the United States declined to intervene, the case experienced significant delays, with the district court unsealing the complaint in August 2019, but no order for service was issued. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process and failure to prosecute, leading to the district court's mixed ruling.

Relator instituted this action on behalf of the United States and the State of New York on February 23, 2012. He complained that Defendants made misrepresentations to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection with the intention of having their claims 'paid or approved' by the United States in violation of the FCA and New York's False Claims Act.

Issue

When does the service-of-process clock begin to run under Section 3730 of the False Claims Act?

Under Section 3730, when does the service-of-process clock begin to tick?

Rule

The False Claims Act requires that a qui tam complaint 'shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders,' meaning the service-of-process clock does not begin until a district court expressly authorizes service.

The False Claims Act requires that a qui tam complaint 'shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders,' meaning the service-of-process clock does not begin until a district court expressly authorizes service.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language of Section 3730, emphasizing that the explicit requirement for a court order to serve a qui tam complaint means that the service clock does not start until such an order is issued. The court found that the district court had erred by dismissing the case for insufficient service of process since it had never issued an order authorizing service.

Because the statute prohibits a relator from serving a qui tam complaint 'until the court so orders,' the service-of-process clock does not begin until a district court expressly authorizes service.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that the district court had committed legal error by dismissing the complaint for insufficient service of process.

We thus VACATE the district court's judgment and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Relator Clifford Weiner prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeals found that the district court had erred in dismissing the case for insufficient service of process without having issued an order for service.

Relator prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeals found that the district court had erred in dismissing the case for insufficient service of process without having issued an order for service.

You must be