Similar State FCA Allegations Yield Mixed Results
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.05
In two California Civil False Claims Act (FCA) cases recently decided by different districts of the California Court of Appeal, California ex rel. Harris v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Jan. 20, 2005) and California ex rel. Bowen v. Bank of America (Jan. 31, 2005), qui tam relators got mixed results on their novel “reverse false claims”allegations that the defendants failed to report and turn over to the State unclaimed property as required by California law. In Harris, applying case law under the federal FCA, the court upheld liability against an escrow title company and reversed summary judgment in favor of its accountants; but in Bowen, the Court, also applying federal case law, upheld the dismissal of the consolidated complaint against several banks on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts that would make the subject property “certain and liquidated,” such that no reverse false claim could arise from the failure to report and turn over the property.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
