U. S. Intervention In Qui Tam Actions

Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc. helps to answer the question what authority does the United States Government have when it declines to intervene at the outset and subsequently opposes a relator's suit? 17 F. 4th 376 (3rd Cir. 2021).

In 2012, Polansky filed an action under the False Claims Act. In February 2019, the Government notified the parties that it intended to dismiss the entire action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c). Under paragraph (c)(1) of that section, a relator's ability to continue a suit he initiated is limited in various ways "[i]f the Government proceeds with the action." Those limits are spelled in out in paragraph (c)(2), including that "[t]he Government may dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the [relator]" so long as the relator receives notice and an opportunity to be heard on the Government's motion. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). Here, although the Government had originally opted not to proceed with the action and had not formally intervened, it pointed to § 3730(c)(2)(A) as the source of its authority to dismiss the case over Polansky's objection.

In August 2019, the Government filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to § 3730(c)(2)(A). The District Court accepted that filing and, following briefing and argument, granted the Government's motion. It recognized the circuit split on the issue of what standard applies to a § 3730(c)(2)(A) dismissal, but because it concluded that the Government had made an adequate showing under any of the prevailing standards, it declined to weigh in.

On appeal, Polansky challenges the District Court's dismissal on the ground that the Government lacked statutory authority to move to dismiss in the first place. He also contends that, if the Government did have that authority, its motion should have been denied on the merits under the applicable standard.

Affirmed—the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Government's motion to dismiss. The court exhaustively examined the interests of the parties, their conduct over the course of the litigation, and the Government's reasons for terminating the action.