|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-315||11th Cir.||Mar 19, 2019||May 13, 2019||9-0||Thomas||OT 2018|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.
Holding: The limitations period in 31 U.S.C. §3731(b)(2) -- which provides that a False Claims Act action must be brought within three years after the “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances” knew or should have known the relevant facts, but not more than 10 years after the violation -- applies in a qui tam suit in which the federal government has declined to intervene; the relator in a nonintervened suit is not “the official of the United States” whose knowledge triggers §3731(b)(2)’s limitations period.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on May 13, 2019.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 19 2018||Application (17A1390) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 10, 2018 to September 8, 2018, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Jun 28 2018||Application (17A1390) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 8, 2018.|
|Sep 07 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 11, 2018)|
|Oct 03 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation.|
|Oct 04 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt.|
|Oct 11 2018||Response to petition from respondent United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt filed.|
|Oct 11 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Oct 23 2018||Reply of petitioners Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation filed.|
|Oct 24 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.|
|Nov 13 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.|
|Nov 16 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 02 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jan 02 2019||Brief of petitioner Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation filed.|
|Jan 02 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt|
|Jan 03 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation.|
|Jan 07 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Joel D. Hesch filed.|
|Jan 09 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for Government Procurement filed.|
|Jan 09 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jan 09 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Jan 09 2019||Brief amici curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar, and the Professional Services Counsel-The Voice of the Government Services Industry filed.|
|Jan 25 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 19, 2019|
|Feb 01 2019||Brief of respondent United States of America ex rel. Billy Joe Hunt filed.|
|Feb 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Feb 08 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Feb 08 2019||Brief amici curiae of Indiana and 19 Other States filed.|
|Feb 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund filed.|
|Feb 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The National Whistleblower Center filed.|
|Feb 14 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Feb 25 2019||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 28 2019||The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. The record is complete.|
|Mar 04 2019||Reply of petitioner Cochise Consultancy, Inc. and The Parsons Corporation filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 19 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Earl N. Mayfield, III, Fairfax, Va.; and Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|May 13 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jun 17 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.