Failing to File a Complaint In Camera and Under Seal Will Not Deprive Court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

By: Joel Androphy, Rachel Grier, and Stephanie Gutheinz

The False Claims Act provides that a relator’s complaint “shall be filed in camera, shall remain under seal for at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the defendant until the court so orders.” 

In United States ex rel. Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, a district court in the Eastern District of Virginia considered whether a relator’s failure to comply with these filing requirements when filing a complaint would require a court to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Relying on the language and legislative history of the filing requirements, the court determined that the filing requirements are not jurisdictional in nature; therefore, failing to file a complaint in camera and under seal will not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. 

The court noted that, while other provisions of the FCA include limitations on jurisdiction, the provisions establishing the filing requirements do not include any such limitation.  In fact, the FCA does not provide any consequences for failing to file a complaint in camera or under seal.  As such, the court reasoned that automatically divesting courts of subject matter jurisdiction over qui tam complaints based solely on the failure to file the complaint in camera or under seal would defeat congressional intent and would also frustrate the overall purpose of the FCA—to prevent and combat fraud. 

The court also determined that the FCA’s filing requirements do not necessarily apply to the filing of an amended complaint where the defendant already has notice of the original complaint.  The primary purpose of the filing and seal provisions is to permit the government time to investigate the claims and determine whether to intervene in the action, without alerting the alleged wrongdoers that they are under investigation.  If the alleged wrongdoers already have notice that they are under investigation, however, the in camera and under seal provisions do not serve their intended purpose and therefore do not apply.  United States ex rel. Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, 2009 WL 1254704 (E.D. Va. May 5, 2009).

Posted in Federal False Claims ActNo Comments

Leave a Reply

This blog is designed to provide general information only. This information is not and should not be construed to be legal advice. The transmission of the information found on this blog also does not result in the formation of a lawyer-client relationship.

Copyright 2014 Berg & Androphy.