829 F.3d 598
8th Cir.2016Background
- Relator Eric Fields sued Bi-State Development Agency (a Missouri-Illinois compact entity) and Eager Road under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging false certifications to obtain federal transit funds.
- Fields worked for Bi-State from 2003 to 2012 and filed the qui tam action in 2014.
- Bi-State moved for summary judgment arguing it is not a “person” under the FCA (relying on Vermont Agency precedent that states/state agencies aren’t FCA persons).
- The district court applied the Eighth Circuit’s “arm of the state” factors (Barket analysis) and concluded Bi-State is a local-government entity, not an arm of the state, so it can be an FCA “person”; summary judgment was denied.
- Bi-State appealed the denial, attempting to raise both the statutory “person” question and Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity defenses.
- The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Bi-State never argued Eleventh Amendment immunity in the district court, and interlocutory appeals on denial of summary judgment based on immunity require that immunity be raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bi‑State is a “person” under the FCA | Fields: Bi‑State falls within the FCA’s scope and can be liable for false claims | Bi‑State: It is not a “person” subject to FCA liability; analogous to state agencies excluded in Vermont Agency | District court denied summary judgment on this issue (Bi‑State characterized as local government); Eighth Circuit did not decide merits on appeal (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) |
| Whether Bi‑State is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity | N/A (plaintiff sought suit to proceed) | Bi‑State: asserted on appeal that it is an arm of the state and thus immune | Not reached by the court: Bi‑State never asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity in district court, so appellate jurisdiction over that immunity question is lacking |
| Whether an interlocutory appeal can raise sovereign‑immunity issues not presented below | N/A | Bi‑State implicitly sought to convert arm‑of‑state analysis into immunity defense on appeal | Court held it cannot consider an immunity argument not raised in district court; it will not decide issues not litigated below |
| Who bears the burden of proof on FCA scope vs. Eleventh Amendment immunity | Fields: burden on plaintiff to show defendant is within FCA scope | Bi‑State: noted that FCA places burden on plaintiff; immunity (if raised) would place burden on defendant | Court noted distinction: FCA scope burden on plaintiff; Eleventh Amendment immunity burden on the entity asserting it; but immunity not argued below, so not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (statute’s scope vs. state immunity; states/state agencies not FCA "persons")
- Cook Cty. v. U.S. ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (local governments qualify as FCA "persons")
- Barket, Levy & Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084 (Eighth Circuit "arm of the state" factors)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (interlocutory appeals of immunity under collateral-order doctrine)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (collateral-order doctrine)
- Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357 (denial of summary judgment generally not appealable)
- Taylor v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 251 F.3d 735 (appellate courts do not reach issues not raised below)
- U.S. ex rel. Lesinski v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 739 F.3d 598 (arm‑of‑state analysis in FCA context)
- U.S. ex rel. Oberg v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 745 F.3d 131 (allocation of burden for asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity)