Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt
139 S. Ct. 1507
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- The False Claims Act (FCA) provides two limitations periods for a “civil action under section 3730”: (1) 6 years from the violation; or (2) 3 years from when “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act” knew or should have known, but no more than 10 years after the violation. (31 U.S.C. §3731(b))
- Relator Billy Joe Hunt filed a qui tam complaint in 2013 alleging Cochise submitted false payment claims for security services in Iraq through early 2007. Hunt alleges he told federal agents about Cochise’s fraud during a November 30, 2010 interview.
- The United States declined to intervene. Cochise moved to dismiss as time-barred; Hunt conceded the 6-year period had run but argued §3731(b)(2) made his suit timely (within 3 years of his 2010 interview and within 10 years of the violation).
- The District Court dismissed (finding Hunt untimely under the interpretations it considered). The Eleventh Circuit reversed, adopting the view that §3731(b)(2) applies and is triggered by the Government official’s knowledge, not the relator’s.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether §3731(b)(2) applies in nonintervened qui tam suits and whether a private relator qualifies as “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hunt) | Defendant's Argument (Cochise) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3731(b)(2) applies to relator-initiated suits when the Government declines to intervene | §3731(b)(2) applies to any “civil action under section 3730,” including nonintervened qui tam suits | §3731(b)(2) should apply only if the Government is a party; otherwise only the 6-year limit applies | §3731(b)(2) applies to relator-initiated nonintervened suits (text treats all §3730 actions the same) |
| Whether a private relator counts as “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act” for the §3731(b)(2) trigger | The relator’s knowledge should start the 3‑year clock in nonintervened suits | A relator is a private person, not a U.S. official; only government official knowledge triggers §3731(b)(2) | A relator is not “the official of the United States”; the Government official’s knowledge, not the relator’s, triggers the 3‑year period |
Key Cases Cited
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (single statutory phrase ordinarily has a fixed meaning)
- Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (avoid attributing different meanings to the same phrase)
- Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (statutory-context approach to interpreting “civil action under section 3730")
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (judicial inquiry complete when text admits no other plausible interpretation)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (use of definite article implies a single referent)
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (qui tam relator is suing as a partial assignee of the United States)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (odd results are not necessarily absurd)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (syllabus does not form part of opinion)