- FCC privacy rule frowns upon arbitration, announces forthcoming rule to ban its use in Internet service provider-customer privacy disputes (Truth on the Market)
- Five takeaways from influential Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies conference on settlement of class actions (Class Action Countermeasures)
- DOJ’s settlement of two False Claims Act suits indicate impacts of Yates Memo and its call for individual accountability on federal civil enforcement (D&O Diary)
- Why are certain counties in Pennsylvania (such as Lackawanna) strong magnets for tort litigation? (Scranton Times-Tribune; HT to Overlawyered, article quotes editor Walter Olson)
- Empty claim on empty packaging space: Federal judge says “it defies logic” that slack fill in ibuprofen bottle (that lists pill count on label) would deceive plaintiff into a purchase (Drug and Device Law)
- Speaking of slack fill, a plaintiff named Wurtzburger is suing KFC for $20 million because her $20 bucket of chicken wasn’t overflowing (Abnormal Use)
- Ninth Circuit denied rehearing in case discussed in WLF Legal Pulse guest commentary that equated falling air emissions with deposits of hazardous waste under CERCLA (Corporate Environmental Lawyer)
- Ruling on a case noted in Sept. 30 WLF Legal Backgrounder, Seventh Circuit follows Supreme Court’s restrictive view of implied-certification theory under False Claims Act (Fried Frank FraudMail)
- Two overlooked, but critical, aspects of DC Circuit’s decision finding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s structure unconstitutional (Asset Securitization Report)
- Expect more activist group petitions seeking threatened or endangered status for species based on future risk of climate change after recent adventurous Ninth Circuit ruling (Law and the Environment)
Our annual briefing was moderated by WLF Legal Policy Advisory Board Chairman Jay Stephens and featured commentary on free-enterprise-oriented cases the Court will hear this Term by Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells and Daryl Joseffer of King & Spalding LLP.
The following materials were provided to attendees:
- The Supreme Court’s NOT Top 10: October Term 2015 Petitions the Justices Should Have Granted
- With Three Cases on October 2016 Docket, US Supreme Court Poised to Expand Its Impact on Patent Rights
- WLF press release announcing amicus brief filing in NLRB v. SW General, Inc.
- WLF press release announcing amicus brief filing in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC
- WLF press release announcing amicus brief filing in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby
- WLF press release announcing amicus brief filing in Microsoft v. Baker
This Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will conduct its Long Conference, so named for the larger than usual number of certiorari petitions it considers there. With the fate of so many cert petitions hanging in the balance—and the overwhelming majority of them about to be denied—now is an opportune time to look back at the top 10 cases that were wrongly denied cert in the Court’s last term.
As with the previous installments of my “Not Top 10” list (see here and here), no more than half the cases discussed below will be ones in which Washington Legal Foundation filed a brief in support of certiorari. Also, the cases will once again be limited to those that affect economic liberty, including the need for legal certainty around key legal policies and regulatory regimes. From WLF’s free-enterprise perspective, those cases that implicate competition in the marketplace, limited and accountable government, individual and business civil liberties, or rule of law concerns matter the most. Continue reading
This past May, a Cook County Associate Judge dismissed 201 Illinois False Claims Act (IFCA) cases at the request of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. The state’s action is an encouraging, albeit overdue, development in a long-running legal saga where one enterprising lawyer has harnessed the state’s enforcement power to pursue personal financial gain that provides little or no benefit to the public.
Much like its federal equivalent, the IFCA allows private citizens (relators) to file fraud claims on behalf of the state. The fraud must be based on a false claim, typically a violation of a law or regulation. If successful, relators can collect up to 30% of the award plus attorneys’ fees. Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court: October 2015 Term Review
Speakers: The Honorable Jay Stephens, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Andrew J. Pincus, Mayer Brown LLP; Elizabeth P. Papez, Winston & Strawn LLP; Jeffrey B. Wall, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Our speakers discussed Court rulings in the areas of class actions, arbitration, the federal False Claims Act, intellectual property, federal regulation, and property rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 16, 2016 decision in a closely watched False Claims Act (FCA) case, Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, had a little bit in it for everyone. It held (as had most of the federal appeals courts) that a contractor can be held liable under the FCA for making a fraudulent claim for payment from the federal government, even if the claim was never expressly made but was merely implied. On the other hand, Universal Health unanimously vacated a First Circuit ruling that had reinstated the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that the First Circuit applied an insufficiently rigorous test for determining whether the defendant’s allegedly false claims were “material.”
So which side really “won” the case? If the correct answer to that question turns on whether the Court’s decision will make it more difficult for private relators to prevail in future FCA cases, then the decision was a win for FCA defendants. For example, the Court unequivocally rejected assertions—frequently raised by FCA plaintiffs—that an FCA claim is proven any time a contractor submits a claim for payment of a contractual claim despite awareness that it has breached a significant provision of its contract. Continue reading
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently dealt qui tam plaintiffs and their lawyers a setback in their campaign to expand federal False Claims Act (FCA) liability in the healthcare industry. Addressing an issue of first impression, the court affirmed the dismissal of a relator’s claim that non-compliance with the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) gives rise to FCA liability. U.S. ex rel. Sheldon v. Kettering Health Network not only found the relator’s complaint deficient on several grounds, but it also held that a dismissed state-court action that Ms. Sheldon filed subsequent to bringing the FCA suit precluded the federal action. Continue reading