Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: March 19, 2019
Decided: May 13, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Thomas

Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 13, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. In a 9-0 decision, the court ruled that a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action can rely on the statute of limitations, but the relator is not an official of the United States.[1]

The case was argued before the court on March 19, 2019. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: After serving time in prison for being part of a fraudulent subcontracting scheme working for the U.S. Government, Billy Joe Hunt, a Parsons Corporation employee, filed an action alleging that Parsons and Cochise Consultancy Inc. violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by submitting fraudulent claims for payment to the United States. Parsons and Cochise argued the statute of limitations barred Hunt’s claim. The statute requires a violation to be brought within six years of the violation or three 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.” The district court granted the contractors’ motion to dismiss, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case.[3]
  • The issues: 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).[4]
  • The outcome: A relator in a False Claims Act can rely on the statute of limitations applies in a qui tam suit. But the relator is not an "official of the United States," he is a private party.[5]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[6]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • May 13, 2019: Affirmed 9-0
    • March 19, 2019: Oral argument
    • November 16, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • September 7, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 11, 2018: Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case

    Background

    The U.S. Department of Defense awarded The Parsons Corporation a contract to remove munitions in Iraq. Parsons was required to ensure the safety of workers during the cleanup. The subcontract was initially awarded to ArmorGroup. Army Corps of Engineers contracting officer Wayne Shaw was then allegedly bribed by Cochise Consultancy Inc. to get Parsons to award the subcontract to Cochise, which it did.[3]

    The federal government "paid Cochise at least $1 million more than it would have paid ArmorGroup had ArmorGroup been awarded the subcontract, plus other expenses related to Cochise not being adequately equipped to perform the services required." After Shaw left Iraq, Parsons awarded the subcontract to ArmorGroup.[3]

    In 2010, FBI agents interviewed Billy Joe Hunt, a Parsons employee, and he told the agents about the fraudulent subcontracting scheme. Hunt was charged for his involvement in the scheme and served time in prison. In 2013, after his release, he filed a qui tam action—an action that occurs when a private party called "a relator brings an action on the government's behalf"—alleging that Parsons and Cochise violated the False Claims Act (FCA).[3][7]

    Parsons and Cochise argued that Hunt’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, which requires a violation to be brought within six years of the violation or three 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.”[3]

    The district court granted the contractors’ motion to dismiss, holding that Hunt’s claim untimely. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case, holding that when Hunt "learned of the fraud is immaterial for statute of limitation purposes, and thus the period began to run when government officials learned of the facts giving rise to the claim."[3]

    Cochise appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case on November 16, 2018.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[4]

    Questions presented:
    • 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).

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court held that a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action can rely on the statute of limitations, but the relator is not an official of the United States. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Thomas wrote,[8]

    “ This case requires us to decide how to calculate the limitations period for qui tam suits in which the United States does not intervene. The Court of Appeals held that these suits are “civil action[s] under section 3730” and that the limitations periods in §3731(b) apply in accordance with their terms, regardless of whether the United States intervenes. It further held that, for purposes of the second period, the private person who initiates the qui tam suit cannot be deemed the official of the United States. We agree, and therefore affirm.[9] ”
    —Clarence Thomas (2019)

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[10]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Oyez, "Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt," accessed May 15, 2019
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "18-315 Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt," accessed February 13, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Oyez.org, "Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt," February 14, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "18-315 Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt," accessed February 13, 2019
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt," accessed May 15, 2019
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt," accessed February 13, 2019
    7. ↑ Law.Cornell.edu, "Qui tam action," accessed February 14, 2019
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt," accessed May 15, 2019
    9. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt, argued March 19, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cochise_Consultancy_Inc._v._United_States,_ex_rel._Hunt&oldid=8891576"