Term: 2018
Docket: 18-315
Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. U.s., Ex Rel. Hunt
- Pro
18-315 COCHISE CONSULTANCY V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 887 F.3d 1081 CERT. GRANTED 11/16/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: The False Claims Act establishes two distinct statute-of-limitations periods. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1), a False Claims Act civil action "may not be brought more than 6 years after the date" of the alleged violation. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2), a False Claims Act civil action "may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date" of the alleged violation. The question presented is whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an "official of the United States" for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-12836
The U.S. Supreme Court case Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. U.S., Ex Rel Hunt, 2018 revolved around the interpretation of the statute of limitations in False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuits brought by whistleblowers on behalf of the government. The FCA allows private parties to sue those who defraud the government and recover damages on its behalf, but these suits must be filed within a certain time frame after violation discovery or when facts material to right action are known/should have been known by relevant officials - whichever is later. Billy Joe Hunt alleged that Cochise Consultancy and another defense contractor had defrauded the federal government during Iraq's reconstruction efforts between January 2006 and early 2007; however, he only reported this fraud in November 2010, outside both six-year limitation period from violation date and three years since senior official should've discovered it under normal circumstances according to lower courts' interpretations which dismissed his claim as untimely filed. However, Supreme Court unanimously reversed this decision arguing that whistleblower isn't "the official" referred to in second part of FCA’s statute-of-limitations provision hence their knowledge doesn’t start clock ticking for filing suit – instead it starts with actual knowledge by relevant governmental authority or ten years after violation occurred if earlier than latter scenario; thus allowing Mr.Hunt's lawsuit proceed further despite being beyond conventional six-year limit.
In the dissenting opinion for Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Hunt, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of the False Claims Act (FCA) statute of limitations was incorrect and inconsistent with its historical context and purpose. He contended that a qui tam action under FCA should be filed within six years after the violation occurred or three years after an official knew or reasonably should have known about it, whichever is later but not beyond ten years from when the fraud took place. According to him, this would prevent whistleblowers from delaying lawsuits indefinitely while damages continue to accumulate against defendants who may lose evidence over time due to such delays in filing suits.
