Jan 42016

First Circuit First-to-File Ruling Further Defines Carter’s Scope

Scott D. Stein and Neil Nandi

A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently vacated and remanded a district court ruling that a relator’s suit against PharMerica Corp. was barred by the first-to-file rule.  See United States ex rel. Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp., No. 14-2164 (1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2015). The appellate court’s decision to permit leave to supplement the complaint addresses a key question left unanswered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter – whether the dismissal of a first-filed complaint cures the jurisdictional defect resulting when a second complaint is filed while the first complaint is pending.

In PharMerica, the relator had filed his initial qui tam action in November 2010 in the District of Rhode Island, then filed an amended complaint in May 2011.  More than two years later, the United States elected not to intervene.  In February 2014, the relator filed a second amended complaint, which PharMerica moved to dismiss, arguing, in part, that the first-to-file bar applied due to a pending, earlier-filed action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  The district court granted the motion to dismiss on that ground.  While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued Carter and the Wisconsin action settled.

The First Circuit determined “that the relator’s case is well suited to a motion for leave to supplement,” and held:   “Developments occurring after the filing of the second amended complaint – the Carter decision and the dismissal of the Wisconsin action – have dissolved the jurisdictional bar that the court below found dispositive.”  The Court made explicit its conclusion “that a supplemental pleading can be used to cure a jurisdictional defect.”  In remanding to allow the relator to file a motion for leave to supplement, the First Circuit emphasized that supplementation should not be granted automatically and noted the appropriateness of denying supplementation when supplementation would unduly delay resolution of the case or when it would be unjust under the totality of the circumstances.  The First Circuit specifically observed that “PharMerica may argue that supplementation would be futile in light of the settlement in the Wisconsin action.”

This approach is in tension with that of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which had held that amending a complaint after the dismissal of an earlier-filed case would not solve the jurisdictional issue if the initial complaint had been filed while the first-filed action was still pending.  By deciding as it did, the First Circuit obviated a need to consider whether a re-filed second complaint would nevertheless be barred by the statute of limitations – a question that the Eastern District of Virginia left open.

A copy of the First Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

Scott D. Stein

Chicago

sstein@sidley.com

Neil Nandi

nnandi@sidley.com

You might also like
First Circuit Changes Course and Finds First-to-File Rule Is Not Jurisdictional

On May 6, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit overturned its own precedent, holding that the first-to-file rule is not jurisdictional. United States v. Millennium Labs., Inc., No. 17-1106, 2019 WL 1987249, at *1 (1st Cir. May 6, 2019).  The First Circuit now joins the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit in treating the first-to-file requirement as merely a matter of adequate pleading (see United States ex rel. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 853 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 199 (2017); United States ex rel. Heath v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112, 120-21 (D.C. Cir. 2015)), widening an existing circuit split on the issue. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inc., 750 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2014) (first-to-file rule is jurisdictional).

Sidley Lawyers Publish Article On Second Circuit Decision Require Dismissal For First-to-File Violations

Sidley lawyers Kristin Graham Koehler and Josh Fougere have authored an article as a part of the Washington Legal Foundation’s Counsel’s Advisories series, entitled “Appeals Court Holds That First-To-File Violations Require Dismissal Of False Claims Act Suits.”  The article examines the Second Circuit’s recent ruling in United States ex rel. Wood v. Allergan, Inc., 899 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2018).  The Second Circuit joined a growing majority view in holding that a violation of the False Claims Act’s “first-to-file bar cannot be remedied by amending or supplementing the complaint” but, instead, requires dismissal.  In reaching that conclusion, the court of appeals made two important points.  First, the Second Circuit rejected the relator’s contention that the earlier-filed suits did not trigger the first-to-file bar because they were deficiently pled and were not as detailed as the current complaint.  Second, the Second Circuit held that, if a “related action” is “pending” when the relator initially files the complaint, the relator cannot “cure” the violation through amendment after the earlier action is dismissed.  The only remedy is dismissal.  This emerging consensus has important consequences for statutes of limitations and for how parallel courts handle multiple qui tam suits making similar allegations.

The article is available for download on the Washington Legal Foundation’s website: https://www.wlf.org/2018/10/18/publishing/appeals-court-holds-that-first-to-file-violations-require-dismissal-of-false-claims-act-suits/.

U.S. Solicitor General Agrees That First-to File Violations Require Dismissal

The Solicitor General recently filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court stating that “the required remedy for a first-to-file violation is dismissal.”  U.S. Br. 10 (emphasis added).

The brief was filed in the context of the long-running case that produced the Court’s opinion a few years ago in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, 135 S. Ct. 1970 (2015).  On remand, the petitioner, Benjamin Carter, maintained that the intervening dismissals of two earlier-filed cases “cured” any first-to-file defect with his case, such that dismissal and re-filing of Carter’s complaint was unnecessary.  The district court and the Fourth Circuit disagreed.  Carter then sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to weigh in.  (The government recommended against certiorari, and the Court denied the petition on June 25, 2018.)