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 | 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.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
