Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Qui Tam Blogs -> Virginia Qui Tam Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Qui Tam

: Virginia Qui Tam Law

Important New Opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Addresses the Seal Requirements of the Federal False Claims Act

By Zachary A. Kitts

ADVERTISEMENTS

An important new opinion issued today by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) discusses the mandatory disclosure and seal requirements of the Federal False Claims Act. The opinion can be found on Westlaw as United States ex rel. Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, et al., 2009 WL 1254704 (E.D.Va.) or by clicking here.

Those provisions, which are found in 31 U.S.C.S. sec. 3730(b)(2), famously require a qui tam plaintiff (or "relator" as plaintiff's are known in the parlance of qui tam) to serve a written disclosure memorandum and all material evidence on the government as a first step in the case. Then, and only then, should the relator file his complaint under seal with the Court.  The matching Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act provision, which is identical to the federal statute, is found at Virginia Code sec. 8.01-216.5.

Most qui tam lawyers are of the opinion that the above requirements are procedural and not jurisdictional . This is the view adopted by Judge O'Grady in his opinion.

Previously, I posted on the topic of whether the provisions of Va. Code 8.01-216.5 apply to the Virginia Attorney General's Office. In other words, would the OAG need to file a self-initiated VFATA complaint under seal. Judge O'Grady's opinion provides further support for my position.

The specific issue in the May 5 opinion is an amended complaint filed by the relator, and defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that relator did not comply with the seal requirements of the statute.

Full post as published by Virginia Qui Tam Law on May 05, 2009 (boomark / email).