SCOTUS Issues Unanimous Whistleblower-Friendly Decision on FCA Limitations Period
The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunttakes an expansive view of the time period relators have to file False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b) (FCA), claims. This could have a broad impact on future FCA cases, as it gives plaintiffs the choice of two limitations periods, whichever is later; potentially forces defendants to deal with the expense of longer discovery periods; and may ultimately increase the already large amount of money that relators and the government can potentially recover.
Resolving the Circuit Split
Under the FCA, an action must be brought either within six years after the statutory violation occurred, 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1), or within three years after the government knew or should have known the relevant facts (but no more than 10 years after the violation), 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2), whichever is later. On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court resolved a three-way circuit split, unanimously holding that both limitations periods in the FCA apply. The issue presented for the Court was how to calculate the limitations period for qui tam suits in which the United States does not intervene. Since the FCA’s shorter potentially applicable limitations period is triggered by notice, courts differed on whether that trigger applied in cases where the government did not intervene. The Supreme Court decided unanimously that a whistleblower relator is not an official of the United States, and therefore a relator’s knowledge of alleged false claims does not trigger the three-year statute of limitations. This standard affirms the fundamental principle behind the history of the FCA and the Latin meaning of qui tam – that whistleblower relators who bring cases without government involvement are serving the function of suing on behalf of the sovereign as well as themselves.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/scotus-issues-unanimous-whistleblower-friendly-decision-fca-limitations-period