|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.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.