D.C. Circuit Creates Split over the Reach of the First-to-File Bar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.18.14
In U.S. ex rel. Shea v. Verizon Co., the D.C. Circuit held that (1) two complaints may be "related" even if they involve different agencies or contracts, (2) the bar applies even when the same relator filed the earlier action, and (3) it continues to operate even after the earlier-filed action is resolved. The third holding (which drew a dissent) conflicts with dicta from two other circuits and the Fourth Circuit's 2013 opinion in U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., petition for cert. filed (discussed here), holding that the first-to-file bar only applies while the earlier action is still pending.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 05.28.26
Texas Targets Big Tech With Wave of Suits and Investigations, Part of Nationwide Trend
Client Alert | 7 min read | 05.27.26
Colorado Hits Reset on AI Regulation: SB 26-189 Repeals and Reenacts the Colorado AI Act
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.26
Don’t Get Left in the Doghouse: The Federal Circuit’s Global K9 Case and the Duty to Intervene

