1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FCA Defendant Wins Attorneys’ Fees and the Government Gets Stuck with the Bill

FCA Defendant Wins Attorneys’ Fees and the Government Gets Stuck with the Bill

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.23.17

In United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Constr., LLC (Aug. 18, 2017), the Sixth Circuit held that the defendant in a False Claims Act case brought by the government was entitled to recover nearly a half-million dollars in attorneys’ fees under § 2412(d)(1)(D) of the Equal Access to Justice Act. The panel majority found that the government’s original demand for damages ($1.66 M) was substantially in excess of the judgment finally obtained ($14,748) thus entitling the defendant, Circle C Construction, to the fees and other expenses related to defending against the government’s excessive demand in a case based on Davis-Bacon Act violations of one of Circle C’s subcontractors. Section 2412(d)(1)(D) of the Equal Access to Justice Act provides that in certain cases, defendants whose net worth falls below specified thresholds may recover costs associated with defending against an “excessive demand” by the government.


Finding the government’s original demand unreasonable because it was not substantially justified, the Sixth Circuit cited its 2016 decision (previously reported here), in which it rejected the government’s damages calculation and observed that the damages sought by the government were “fairyland” rather than actual.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....