In a False Claims Act lawsuit against an armored car
manufacturer, Judge Kiser recently denied a motion to stay the
case, pending resolution of related criminal charges, and granted a
motion for reconsideration, thus reviving FCA claims based on the
"implied certification" theory.
The Complaint alleged that defendant, a government contractor,
knew that the vehicles for which it was billing the government did
not meet the ballistic protection requirements of its contracts
with the government; nevertheless, defendant billed and collected
for these vehicles it knew did not meet contract
specifications. Judge Kiser determined that, under U.S.
ex rel Badr v. Triple Canopy Inc., 775 F.3d 628 (4th Cir.
2015), these allegations make out a claim for
"implied certification" under the False Claims Act.
Judge Kiser had previously granted a motion to dismiss those
claims. However, finding that Triple Canopy
constituted a "change in the law," Judge Kiser granted
the motion for reconsideration, thus reviving Plaintiff's
"implied certification" claims.
The Court also denied defendants' motion to stay because,
among other things, plaintiff had an interest in proceeding
expeditiously, defendants were seeking what could be an indefinite
stay, the Western District of Virginia has a strong policy of
efficient and expeditious resolution of cases, and the public has
an interest in seeing a swift resolution of the matter. The
Court explained that since plaintiff was accused of defrauding
taxpayer money, the public interest is served by investigating the
merits and, if plaintiff is found liable, recovering ill-gotten
gains. Likewise, the public interest would be served if
plaintiff is not found liable because "[t]he peace of mind
that comes with knowing that one has not been defrauded can be just
as valuable as recovering any defrauded funds."
The Court concluded: "Considering all of the factors, a stay
is not warranted. [Defendant] is free to exercise his Fifth
Amendment rights in this case. Doing so places him at no
greater disadvantage than every other litigant who wishes to
protect his rights."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.