States’ Statutes Of Limitations Apply To Federal FCA Retaliation Claims
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.27.05
Resolving a split among circuits regarding the proper statute of limitations to apply in "retaliation" claims brought by aggrieved whistleblowers against their employers under the federal civil False Claims Act, the Supreme Court in Graham County Soil & Water Conserv. Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson (June 20, 2005) held that, instead of the familiar six-year limitations period for substantive FCA allegations, the most analogous statute of limitations under state law (typically, state employment or other tort law) applies. The majority reasoned that, otherwise, the limitations period would be left without a starting point and would be inconsistent with the general rule that Congress drafts statutes of limitations to begin when the plaintiff has a “complete and present cause of action.”
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.13.26
Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief
A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.12.26
SBA Announces Doubling Veteran Contracting Target to 10% for FY 2027, but Questions Remain
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.12.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.11.26
President Trump Nominates Peter Feldman to Serve as CPSC Chairman and Commissioner
