Advocates for Justice

Defendants in federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) cases often attempt to get cases dismissed by alleging that the whistleblower’s claims are based on information that was “publicly disclosed.” This type of defense is commonly referred to as a “public disclosure bar” defense. 

When a company charges the government for goods or services that were provided in a manner that violates laws, regulations, rules, or contractual provisions, those charges may violate the False Claims Act. This type of violation is often characterized as a “false certification” violation. As described by a California Court of Appeals, under the California False Claims Act, “a vendor impliedly certifies compliance with its express contractual requirements when it bills a public agency for providing goods or services.” San Francisco Unified School Dist. ex rel. Contreras v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 438, 442. In Laidlaw, for example, the defendant—a school bus company—was found to have violated the California False Claims Act because it failed to comply with maintenance standards and pollution controls that were required in its contract with the government.

Op-Ed Columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an important piece in today’s New York Times about the correlation between increasing economic inequality and the decline in union membership.  In addition to the article’s substance, what was noteworthy was Mr. Kristof’s mea culpa for previously “disdain[ing]” unions for their perceived corruption and nepotism.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?ref=opinion.  He admitted that he was wrong.

On December 23, 2014, Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California ruled in plaintiffs’ favor, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. See United States ex. rel. Dalitz v. AmSurg Corporation, No. 2:12-cv-02218-TLN-CKD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177374 (E.D. Cal. 2014). This effectively allowed plaintiffs’ False Claims Act (FCA) case to continue.