United States Ex Rel. Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp.
809 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2015Background
- Relator Robert Gadbois sued PharMerica under the False Claims Act (FCA) and parallel state statutes, filing a qui tam complaint while the case was sealed.
- After amendments and unsealing, PharMerica moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing the FCA’s first-to-file bar (31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)) divested the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction because a similar suit was pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
- The district court compared pleadings and dismissed Gadbois’s federal FCA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the first-to-file bar, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Kellogg Brown & Root Services v. Carter, holding the first-to-file bar ceases to operate once the earlier suit is dismissed.
- Shortly after Carter, the earlier Wisconsin action settled and was dismissed. Gadbois sought on appeal either to have his complaint deemed supplemented with that intervening fact or to be remanded so he could move to supplement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d).
- The First Circuit considered whether Rule 15(d) can cure jurisdictional defects and whether supplementation should be allowed; it vacated and remanded for the district court to exercise its discretion on a motion to supplement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15(d) can cure a subject-matter jurisdiction defect that existed at filing | Gadbois: supplementation may allege subsequent events (Carter + dismissal of Wisconsin action) that remove the jurisdictional bar | PharMerica: jurisdiction is fixed at time of filing; first-to-file bar is jurisdictional and cannot be cured by supplementation | Court: Rule 15(d) may be used to cure many types of jurisdictional defects, so supplementation is eligible |
| Whether the Court of Appeals should itself order supplementation on appeal | Gadbois: asks court to deem complaint supplemented or remand with instruction to permit supplementation | PharMerica: supplementation is discretionary and should not be ordered on appeal | Court: Denied deeming supplemented; remanded so district court can exercise its discretion under Rule 15(d) |
| Whether time-of-filing rule bars supplementation in federal-question cases | Gadbois: inapplicable here given no manipulative conduct and intervening changes | PharMerica: emphasizes traditional time-of-filing principle to bar relief | Court: time-of-filing rule is not dispositive in federal-question suits absent abuse; it does not preclude Rule 15(d) supplementation |
| Standards for allowing supplementation under Rule 15(d) | Gadbois: supplementation promotes efficiency and avoids pointless formality | PharMerica: prejudice, futility, or delay warrant denial | Court: Rule 15(d) is discretionary and courts should consider futility, prejudice, delay, and other context-specific factors; district court should decide first |
Key Cases Cited
- Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. v. Carter, 135 S. Ct. 1970 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (first-to-file bar stops operating when earlier suit is dismissed)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1976) (recognizing supplemental complaint can cure previously unmet jurisdictional condition)
- ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg, 522 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2008) (time-of-filing rule originates in diversity cases and should not be indiscriminately applied in federal-question cases)
- Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Rule 15(d) can cure jurisdictional defects)
- Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2002) (Rule 15(d) supplementation may cure jurisdictional defects)
- Feldman v. Law Enforcement Assocs. Corp., 752 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (supplementation can show expiration of jurisdictional waiting periods)