The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15513 (Dec. 6, 2016), is a disappointingly narrow decision. It merely holds that dismissal of a False Claims Act qui tam suit for violation of the “seal” provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), is not mandatory. […]
Supreme Court’s FCA Seal Violation Opinion Lacks Needed Guidance Read More »
What do prescription drugs, motor boats, pesticides, automobiles, medical devices, locomotives, cigarettes, vaccines, and oil tankers have in common? During the past 25 years, each has been the subject of at least one Supreme Court opinion concerning federal preemption of state-law product liability claims. No uniform rule has emerged from those opinions (e.g., there is
Supreme Court Punts On Another Federal Preemption Product-Liability Conundrum Read More »
Two recent Law360 feature articles on the influence of U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs quote Larry Ebner, founder of Capital Appellate Advocacy PLLC, a Washington, D.C.-based appellate litigation boutique. The October 19 article, entitled “6 Ways To Be the High Court’s Best Friend,” quotes Larry on the advantages of representing amicus groups “with a strong reputation of
Larry Ebner Quoted In Two Law360 Feature Articles on Supreme Court Amicus Briefs Read More »
Lawrence S. Ebner filed in the U.S. Supreme Court a merits-stage amicus curiae brief on behalf of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513, urging the Court to hold that a willful violation of the False Claims Act’s mandatory seal requirement should result in dismissal
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016), will trigger weeks of commentary, months of debate, and years of litigation on how courts should apply the “implied false certification theory” of False Claims Act liability. But as discussed below, I believe that there
Text Trumps Policy in Supreme Court False Claims Act “Implied Certification” Decision Read More »
According to Webster’s, a “switcheroo” is “an unexpected reversal or change.” When a federal department or agency pulls a switcheroo on the public or an industry by abruptly reversing a long-held interpretation of a key statutory phrase, there can be serious economic or other consequences for those who are affected. In an opinion issued on
Labor Department “Switcheroo” Gets No Respect From Supreme Court Read More »
As the attached article explains, Justice Scalia’s 1988 “government contractor defense” opinion in Boyle v. United Technologies established an important preemption principle that not only includes, but also extends beyond, product liability suits involving military equipment.
Boyle – Justice Scalia’s Gift to Government Contractors Read More »
The federal Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 704, authorizes companies or individuals to obtain judicial review when they are aggrieved by “final agency action.” This long-standing statutory right to go to court to challenge final actions by federal departments and agencies is sacrosanct among federally regulated industries and companies. In a unanimous decision
Justices Reject U.S. Attempt To Muddy The Waters On “Finality” Read More »
In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held today in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, that alleging a “bare procedural violation” of a federal statute may not be enough to confer a plaintiff with standing to sue. On the other hand, the Court’s 6-2 opinion, authored by Justice Alito, indicated that “the violation
Spokeo “Standing” Ruling Not Cast In Concrete Read More »
Lawrence S. Ebner filed in the U.S. Supreme Court a certiorari-stage amicus curiae brief on behalf of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar in FCA US LLC v. The Center For Auto Safety, No. 15-1211, urging the Court to establish a nationally uniform “good cause” standard for averting the unsealing of court-filed discovery documents containing confidential business
