Rille v. United States, No. 11-3514 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseRelators filed related qui tam actions, alleging that government contractors, including Cisco, committed fraud against the government by means of a kickback and defective pricing schemes in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 and the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. 51-52. The government intervened against Cisco, adopted the complaint, and settled the action. The government objected to relators’ claim to a percentage of the settlement on the ground that the relators’ complaint did not plead the conduct that formed the basis of the claims that the government ultimately settled; that the relators’ claims based on an alleged kickback scheme lacked merit; and that the settlement covered a separate defective pricing scheme. The district court awarded relators over eight million dollars. The Eighth Circuit initially affirmed. On rehearing, en banc, the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding that the relator may recover only from the proceeds of the settlement of the claim that he brought. The district court’s order did not clearly apply that legal standard or make factual findings necessary to resolve the case under that standard.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, for the Court En Banc] Civil case - False Claims Act. When the government proceeds with an action brought by a relator under the False Claims Act, and then settles both the claim brought by the relator and a different claim that does not overlap factually with the claim brought by the relator, the better view according to the text and structure of the Act is that the relator may recover only from the proceeds of the settlement that he brought; the district court's order does not clearly apply this legal standard or make factual findings that are necessary to resolve the case under this standard, and its order is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Judge Bye, dissenting, joined by Judge Smith.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 10, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.