El-Khalil, DPM v. Tedeschi
2:18-cv-12759-MAG-APP
E.D. Mich.Mar 20, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Ali El-Khalil sued multiple defendants, asserting (1) retaliation under the False Claims Act (FCA) § 3730(h), (2) conspiracy to violate the FCA retaliation provision, and (3) tortious interference; the court previously dismissed the retaliation and conspiracy claims against defendant Dr. Mahmud Zamlut.
- Zamlut moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, arguing El-Khalil’s FCA retaliation claim against him was unwarranted and frivolous.
- El-Khalil argued individual liability was permissible because the 2009 amendment to the FCA removed the term "employer," allegedly expanding the statute beyond traditional "employment-like" relationships.
- The court found El-Khalil identified no controlling Sixth Circuit authority or persuasive post‑2009 decisions supporting his position, and he failed to rebut contrary Sixth and Fifth Circuit interpretations.
- The court concluded the claim was not warranted by existing law nor a nonfrivolous extension of it and therefore awarded sanctions to Zamlut, directing Zamlut to file a fee request and setting briefing deadlines.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of FCA § 3730(h): whether the anti-retaliation provision applies to non‑employer, non‑employment‑like individuals | The 2009 FCA amendment (removing "employer") permits individual liability outside employment‑like relationships | FCA retaliation protection is limited to "employment‑like" relationships; no precedent extends it to a colleague like Zamlut | Court held plaintiff offered no controlling or persuasive authority; claim was meritless—FCA retaliation did not apply to Zamlut |
| Appropriateness of Rule 11 sanctions for pursuing the FCA claim | The claim was a reasonable attempt to extend/interpret the statute post‑2009 amendment | The claim was frivolous under Rule 11 because plaintiff cited no relevant binding authority and failed to address contrary circuit decisions | Court granted Rule 11 sanctions, finding the claim unwarranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous extension |
Key Cases Cited
- Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014) (interpreting FCA retaliation scope as limited to employment‑like relationships)
- Howell v. Town of Ball, 827 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2016) (concluding 2009 FCA amendments did not expand retaliation protection to non‑employer individuals)
- Mruz v. Caring, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 701 (D.N.J. 1998) (pre‑2009 decision construing "employee" narrowly)
- Palladino ex rel. U.S. v. VNA of S. New Jersey, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 2d 455 (D.N.J. 1999) (pre‑2009 decision applying a limited scope to FCA "employee" protection)