Insights

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.

FY 2024 saw continued growth in False Claims Act enforcement, with a record year for new qui tam and government-initiated actions, and the highest total recovery in three years. Enforcement of pandemic-related fraud and cybersecurity noncompliance increased, and health care, procurement, and small business fraud violations were again priority areas. A groundbreaking opinion from the District Court for the Middle District of Florida may have teed up a potentially landscape-shifting decision about the viability of the qui tam mechanism in the not too distant future. And a landmark administrative law decision at the U.S. Supreme Court may impact many FCA cases to come. Significant decisions regarding retaliation, excessive fines, the first-to-file rule, and the public disclosure bar were also handed down by courts of appeals. Crowell attorneys discuss these highlights and others in a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor.

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight that is increasingly likely to reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. Judge Mizelle's decision was the first to strike down the FCA qui tam provisions, but not the first to consider the issue. Arguments challenging the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions proliferated after Justice Thomas indicated some doubt about the qui tam device in his dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). But every other judge to consider the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions.