First Means First: Dismissal of Prior Related Actions No Cure For Relator’s First-to-File Defect
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.15.17
The Fourth Circuit held in United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton – its third decision in this protracted litigation – that the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule required dismissal of the relator’s action, because relator brought his case while related cases were pending even though those related cases had since been dismissed and the relator’s complaint subsequently amended. The court explained that the statutory text of the first-to-file rule is “unambiguous” and “affords courts no flexibility to accommodate an improperly-filed action when its earlier-filed counterpart ceases to be pending.” The court acknowledged that its holding “may raise statute of limitations problems” for some FCA relators, but noted that (1) the FCA’s objective of putting the government on notice of fraud was already met by the first-filed actions, and (2) FCA defendants also have an interest “in repose and avoiding stale claims outside the limitations period.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
