544 F. App'x 490
5th Cir.2013Background
- King, a former associate professor at UTHSCH, alleged FCA violations tied to Milewicz’s federally funded research and improper data handling.
- King claimed the Center defrauded the federal government by covering up misconduct and failing to obtain subjects’ informed consent.
- King sought FCA relief and also asserted retaliation/ wrongful termination under § 3730(h) for reporting misconduct.
- United States notified non-intervention on Feb 22, 2012.
- District court dismissed the case October 31, 2012, on sovereign-immunity and qui tam grounds and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- CourtAffirmed district court’s dismissal and held UTHSCH is an arm of the state, not a proper FCA “person.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UTHSCH is subject to FCA qui tam liability | King argues UTHSCH is not an arm of the state and can be a ‘person’ under FCA. | UTHSCH contends Stevens bars FCA liability against states or state agencies. | UTHSCH is an arm of the state; not a ‘person’ under FCA; qui tam claims barred. |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars FCA retaliation claims | King seeks monetary relief under § 3730(h) against a state entity. | Defendant argues immunity applies to monetary relief under retaliation provision. | Sovereign immunity bars monetary relief; retaliation claim dismissed. |
| Timeliness of King’s appeal and extension of time | Excusable neglect justified late filing under Rule 4(a)(5). | Delay was not excusable or prejudicial; appeal untimely. | District court did not abuse discretion; extension granted; appeal timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vt. Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (state not a ‘person’ under FCA; Stevens governs)
- Clark v. Tarrant County, Texas, 798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1986) (arm-of-the-state factors for sovereign immunity/Eleventh Amendment)
- Richardson v. Southern University, 118 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 1997) (six-factor test for arm-of-the-state status)
- United Carolina Bank v. Bd. of Regents of Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 665 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1982) (state funds and fiscal autonomy analysis)
- Jagnandan v. Giles, 538 F.2d 1166 (5th Cir. 1976) (tuition/refund funding implicated state treasury)
- Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (excusable neglect factors framework)
- Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 1998) (ignorance of rule not always excusable neglect)
- Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009) (clarifies timing for FCA qui tam extensions when US not intervening)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (mandatory/jurisdictional appeal deadlines)
- Foulds v. Texas Tech Univ., 171 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 1999) (sovereign immunity in higher education context)