§ 3730(b)(1) lets them voluntarily dismiss those actions only with the government's written consent. Relators can only bring qui tam actions on the government's behalf, and 31 U.S.C. In AMB, the court explained that although Rule 41(a) talks about "the plaintiff," the different relators didn't matter because they brought identical claims and the government was the "common plaintiff" in both earlier suits. If the plaintiff files a second time, that's it-a second voluntary dismissal is a merits adjudication (i.e., with prejudice). Rule 41(a)(1)(B) states that a voluntary dismissal is usually "without prejudice" unless the notice or stipulation of dismissal "states otherwise." However, if "the plaintiff" previously dismissed a lawsuit involving "the same claim," then "a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits." In other words, under Rule 41's two-dismissal rule, a plaintiff can usually get one free pass to voluntarily dismiss and refile their case. The court concluded that the rule applied because the prior qui tam suits all belonged to the same "common plaintiff": the United States, which never intervened but had consented to the prior dismissals. Ariz.) ( AMB), the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss AMB's new suit with prejudice- not under the first-to-file rule, but under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B)'s "two-dismissal" rule, which treats a plaintiff's second voluntary dismissal as precluding future suits involving the same claims. But earlier this month, in Arizona Medical Billing Inc. At that point, AMB re-filed its complaint, commencing a third qui tam suit. A year later, the first-filed relator also voluntarily dismissed her complaint. (AMB), stipulated to the dismissal, which was entered without prejudice. The second relator, Arizona Medical Billing Inc. The defendant moved to dismiss the second relator's suit under the False Claims Act's first-to-file bar, because the first-filed suit was still pending in court. In a story with a familiar start but a twist ending, an Arizona clinical laboratory recently faced two identical qui tam lawsuits by two separate relators.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |