938 F.3d 384
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Relator Weih Chang filed a qui tam suit under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and Delaware False Claims Act (DFCA) against the Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware alleging false claims for state and federal funding.
- The United States and Delaware declined to intervene, and Chang amended his complaint; the Center answered.
- Nearly three years after filing, both governments moved to dismiss the action, asserting investigations showed the allegations were factually incorrect and legally insufficient.
- Chang opposed the motions but did not request oral argument or an in-person hearing.
- The District Court granted the governments’ motions without an in-person hearing or a written opinion; Chang appealed, arguing the FCA/DFCA guarantee an automatic in-person hearing before dismissal.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the statutes do not guarantee an automatic in-person hearing and that Chang failed to show the governments’ dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, or illegal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a relator is entitled to an automatic in-person hearing before dismissal when the government moves to dismiss a qui tam action | Chang: FCA/DFCA give relators an "opportunity for a hearing" that requires the court to hold an in-person hearing sua sponte | Govts: "Opportunity" is satisfied by notice and chance to respond; no automatic in-person hearing absent a request or colorable showing | No. No automatic in-person hearing. Relator must request a hearing or make a colorable showing of arbitrary/illegal government action; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird‑Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998) (court approval standard for government dismissal; two‑part test and relator’s burden)
- Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (executive has broad discretion to dismiss qui tam suits)
- Ridenour v. Kaiser‑Hill Co., LLC, 397 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2005) (adopts Sequoia approval test)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (Executive discretion not to act is presumptively unreviewable)
- Costle v. Pac. Legal Found., 445 U.S. 198 (1980) ("opportunity for a public hearing" does not require a hearing unless requested)
- Nat’l Indep. Coal Operators’ Ass’n v. Kleppe, 423 U.S. 388 (1976) (statutory "opportunity" for hearing is keyed to a request)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for dismissal motions)
- United States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 1149 (3d Cir. 1991) (interpretation of "hearing" in analogous FCA context)