“A” brings an action against “B”. The causes of action asserted against “B” are all timely for statute of limitations purposes. Following discovery, “A” learns that “C” played a material role in the facts and...more
In Chadha v. Wahedna, 2021 NY Slip Op. 50509(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2021), Justice Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division, dismissed Plaintiff Nilsa Chadha’s (“Plaintiff”) claims in their entirety due to...more
On April 30, 2021, a Northern District of Texas judge denied a motion to dismiss an FCA qui tam action alleging “a fraudulent scheme to obtain Government subcontracting opportunities reserved for eligible small businesses...more
In March 2018, White and Williams issued an alert covering the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) intervention in the False Claims Act (FCA) case United States ex rel. Medrano v. Diabetic Care RX, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 62617 (S.D....more
Seven years after filing their initial complaint, a Montana federal court ruled that plaintiffs’ FCA action—at least on some claims and against some defendants—may finally proceed. Cain v. Salish Kootenai Coll., Inc., No....more
“Beer: The cause and solution to all of life’s problems.” Mr. Homer J. Simpson would love the recent case of a Massachusetts craft beer company that has been trying in federal court to get the employment website Glassdoor...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently heard oral argument in connection with a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee that primarily raised two FCA questions...more
The FCA continues to be the federal government’s primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we...more
In a case decided in December that flew beneath our radar, a judge in the Southern District of California dismissed without prejudice a proposed class action alleging that Citizens for Humanity falsely labeled its jeans as...more
In an April 2016 non-precedential Superior Court Appellate decision, Doyle v. Doyle, the court found that a husband and wife had entered into a valid divorce settlement agreement despite the wife’s argument that the agreement...more
This is an interesting decision for its discussion on what must be pled to obtain Chancery jurisdiction in a claim seeking to pierce the corporate veil. It is not enough to just allege the entity was used to defraud. Rather,...more
In an unpublished decision issued on Thursday, August 13, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reemphasized Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s “stringent particularity requirement” when it affirmed a lower court’s...more
On December 6, 2013, in U.S. ex rel. Helen Ge, M.D. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (No. 13-1088), the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Dr. Helen Ge’s qui tam actions against her former...more