{"id":32675,"date":"2023-08-31T19:03:00","date_gmt":"2023-08-31T19:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?post_type=publications&p=32675"},"modified":"2025-11-19T17:18:41","modified_gmt":"2025-11-19T17:18:41","slug":"5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse","status":"publish","type":"publications","link":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/","title":{"rendered":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An eight-year delay in the DOJ\u2019s intervention decision in a False Claims Act case led to the loss of more than half of the damages awarded at trial. A divided Fifth Circuit panel determined that the government\u2019s claims did not relate back to the original complaint, leaving much of the litigated conduct beyond the statute of limitations. Finding the DOJ did not diligently investigate the original allegations, the majority also declined to toll the government\u2019s claims\u2014and it rebuked the DOJ\u2019s \u201cinexcusable\u201d overuse of the statute\u2019s seal provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A distinctive feature of False Claims Act (FCA) litigation is the requirement that whistleblower, or qui tam<\/em>, complaints be filed under seal and kept that way for 60 days[1]<\/a> while the DOJ \u201cdiligently . . . investigate[s]\u201d the complaint and decides whether to intervene and take over the action.[2]<\/a> The DOJ may move the court, \u201cfor good cause shown,\u201d to extend the seal period beyond 60 days,[3]<\/a> and repeated grants of such motions can result in seal periods lasting a year or more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An FCA Medicare fraud case decided by a partially divided Fifth Circuit panel on August 21, 2023, U.S. ex rel. Aldridge v. Corporate Management, Inc.<\/em>,[4]<\/a> had involved eighteen such motions before the district court, resulting in an eight-year-long <\/em>seal period. On appeal, that delay wound up costing the government over half of the jury\u2019s damages award, for statute of limitations reasons. And, while the majority stopped short of dismissing the government\u2019s claims based on abuse of the seal provision, it subjected the DOJ\u2019s \u201cinterminable [seal] extensions\u201d to withering criticism.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Qui tam <\/em><\/strong>and intervention<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The qui tam <\/em>complaint in Aldridge <\/em>alleged Medicare fraud against a hospital, its corporate management company, and executives. The relator alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent cost reporting, inflating supply costs, and improperly waiving co-payments and deductibles, among other misconduct.[6]<\/a> After the government finally intervened, its amended complaint alleged improper billing of luxury automobiles and of executive salaries for work not performed.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the government\u2019s intervention, the defendants moved to dismiss its claims, arguing the eight-year delay prejudiced them and violated the FCA,[8]<\/a> and also moved to unseal the entire record. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and unsealed only the government\u2019s extension motions and the court\u2019s orders granting them. The government\u2019s eighteen extension memoranda therefore remained sealed.[9]<\/a> A nine-week jury trial followed, in which the jury found the defendants liable for approximately $10 million in damages\u2014over $32 million, after the statutory trebling.[10]<\/a> Thirteen years had elapsed since the filing of the original action.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among other post-trial motions, the defendants again sought to unseal the government\u2019s extension memoranda, moved for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficient evidence, and moved for a new trial.[12]<\/a> These motions were unsuccessful, and the district court confirmed the judgment.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appeal to Fifth Circuit<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appealing to the Fifth Circuit, the defendants challenged, inter alia<\/em>, the sufficiency of the evidence proving the FCA claims, the district court\u2019s application of the statute of limitations, and the court\u2019s grant of eighteen seal extensions.[14]<\/a> The appellate court reviewed the district court\u2019s denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law and its statute of limitations decisions de novo<\/em>, and the rulings on the motions for extension of the seal period and for a new trial for abuse of discretion.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The majority affirmed the district court\u2019s denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law,[16]<\/a> finding a \u201clegally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury\u201d to have found the defendants liable.[17]<\/a> It also upheld the denial of a new trial, on the even more deferential standard that there was not \u201can absolute absence of evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdict.\u201d[18]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the district court\u2019s application of the FCA\u2019s statute of limitations did not similarly pass muster,[19]<\/a> as the majority found the government\u2019s allegations regarding luxury vehicles and improper salary payments involved \u201cconduct different from that\u201d alleged by the relator.[20]<\/a> The FCA contains a specific relation-back provision available only to the government, allowing the government\u2019s intervenor complaint to relate back to the original filing date of the qui tam<\/em> complaint so long as the government\u2019s claim \u201carises out of the conduct, transactions, or occurrences set forth\u201d in the original complaint.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the government\u2019s claims were not \u201ctied to a common core of operative facts\u201d[22]<\/a> with the relator\u2019s claims, the government\u2019s claims did not relate back to the date the relator\u2019s original complaint was filed. As a result, conduct more than six years prior to the date of the government\u2019s intervenor complaint fell outside the FCA\u2019s statute of limitations.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of those older claims could potentially be resuscitated via the FCA\u2019s tolling provision, which gives the government \u201c3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known\u201d to the government,[24]<\/a> provided the government acted \u201cdiligently\u201d to preserve its claims.[25]<\/a> However, because the government likely knew \u201cfacts material to the right of action\u201d nearly four years before it eventually intervened (and four years after it began investigating),[26]<\/a> the majority concluded the government did not show diligence and declined to toll those claims.[27]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Repeated use of the FCA seal provision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aldridge<\/em>\u2019s harshest language was reserved for the DOJ\u2019s \u201cincessant delay in intervening,\u201d[28]<\/a> which resulted in years of unfair \u201cunilateral discovery\u201d by the government.[29]<\/a> Both the defense and relators\u2019 bar have expressed frustration with the length of government investigations, but courts have rarely addressed this issue outside the context of a request to extend the seal. With the issue squarely before it, the Fifth Circuit amplified the observations of an earlier district court opinion that characterized a four-year prolongation of the seal period (only half as long as in Aldridge<\/em>) as \u201capproach[ing] the abusive.\u201d[30]<\/a> The district court itself, in the majority\u2019s view, bore some responsibility for \u201cenabl[ing] the [g]overnment\u2019s gamesmanship\u201d by granting all of the government\u2019s \u201cincreasingly rote requests for extension of the seal period.\u201d[31]<\/a> This echoed Martin<\/em>, where the district court faulted its own participation in what had become an inappropriately \u201ccomfortable routine\u201d of granting such extensions, perhaps fostered by \u201cthe absence of any opposing party to object\u201d[32]<\/a> and the resulting inadequately \u201csearching inquiry\u201d into the government\u2019s good cause showing.[33]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite finding the prolonged series of seal extension requests \u201cinexcusable,\u201d the majority balked at granting the \u201cextraordinary sanction\u201d of dismissing the government\u2019s claims on that ground.[34]<\/a> For this, the majority cited two reasons. First, it found the defendant-appellants failed \u201cto pinpoint when the court\u2019s cumulative indulgence\u201d of the government\u2019s repeated delays \u201crose to an abuse of discretion.\u201d[35]<\/a> Second, and \u201c[m]ore importantly,\u201d the court could find no precedent for dismissal based on abuse of the seal provision\u2014though it cautioned that \u201clesser sanction short of dismissal\u201d could be warranted in such cases.[36]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although it declined to \u201cbreak new ground . . . by granting such drastic relief\u201d as dismissal, the majority concluded that the government did not \u201cescape unscathed.\u201d Due to the statute of limitations implications of the government\u2019s prolonged delays, the court noted pointedly, the \u201cconsequence of [that] dilatory conduct is the reduction by over half <\/em>of the judgment\u201d in the case.[37]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aldridge <\/em>provides ammunition for FCA defendants to try to check abuse of the seal period. First, it makes clear district courts must scrutinize new claims added by the government after lengthy investigations to ensure compliance with the FCA\u2019s statute of limitations. Second, it is strong, persuasive authority that the government cannot use the seal period to conduct unilateral discovery. Because the standard of review for civil investigative demands and subpoenas issued in furtherance of an investigation is extremely deferential, Aldridge <\/em>and similar district court decisions may provide a path to challenge lengthy, overbroad discovery as abusive of the FCA\u2019s seal provision.[38]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> 31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3730(b)(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Id.<\/em> \u00a7 3730(a) (alteration added). The idea behind the seal provision is to safeguard the DOJ\u2019s ability to evaluate the relator\u2019s (i.e.<\/em>, whistleblower\u2019s) claims without the defendant being alerted to the existence of the lawsuit and pending investigation.  See State Farm & Cas. Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby<\/em>, 580 U.S. 26, 34\u201335 (2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> 31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3730(b)(3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Nos. 21-60658 et al., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023). The appeal was from the judgment in Civ. A. No. 1:16-CV-369 (S.D. Miss. May 10, 2020). The qui tam <\/em>complaint was originally filed on May 31, 2007, and the jury verdict was rendered on March 12, 2020. A brief separate writing, labeled as a partial dissent, took issue with a single aspect of the majority\u2019s decision: the determination that the claims asserted by the government in its intervenor complaint did not \u201crelate back\u201d to the original complaint and therefore were partially time-barred by the FCA\u2019s statute of limitations.  See id. <\/em>at *56\u201358 (Ho, J., partially dissenting).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926,at *38 (quoting U.S. ex rel. Martin v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc.<\/em>, 912 F. Supp. 2d 618, 625 (E.D. Tenn. 2012)) (alteration added). While Aldridge<\/em>\u2019s vehement criticism of the government\u2019s serial extensions of the seal period is, strictly speaking, the opinion of the panel majority, the partial dissent (as noted below) expressed no disagreement with that criticism. See infra <\/em>n.28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926,at *9, 30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *11\u201312.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *12; see also <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3729(a)(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926, at *12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *12\u201313.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *13.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *14\u201325.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *13 (quoting Flowers v. S. Reg\u2019l Physician Servs. Inc.<\/em>, 247 F.3d 229, 235 (5th Cir. 2001)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Id. <\/em>(quoting Wantou v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., L.L.C.<\/em>, 23 F.4th 422, 431 (5th Cir. 2022)) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted by Aldridge<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *25\u201331.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *29\u201330 (quoting U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int\u2019l Constr., Inc.<\/em>, 608 F.3d  871, 881 (D.C. Cir. 2010)); see also id. <\/em>at *30\u201331 (finding the government\u2019s complaint did not merely \u201cclarify[]\u201d or \u201cadd[] detail\u201d to the relator\u2019s initial allegations, but rather \u201cset forth new ones\u201d) (alterations added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> See <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3731(c).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21826,at *29 (quoting U.S. ex rel. Vavra v. KBR, Inc.<\/em>, 848 F.3d 366, 382 (5th Cir. 2017)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *30\u201331; see also <\/em>31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3731(b)(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> 31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3731(b)(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926, at *31 (citing Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown<\/em>, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *34\u201335 (quoting 31 U.S.C. \u00a7 3731(b)(2)). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *36. While the panel\u2019s decision in Aldridge <\/em>was divided, it is worth noting that the partial dissent took issue with the majority solely as to \u201crelation back,\u201d see id. <\/em>at *56\u201358 (Ho, J., partially dissenting); the separate writing expresses no quarrel with the majority\u2019s criticism of the DOJ\u2019s repeated seal extension motions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *39.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> U.S. ex rel. Martin v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.<\/em>,912 F. Supp. 2d 618, 623 (E.D. Tenn. 2012); see also Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926, at *37 (quoting Martin<\/em>, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 623) (four-year prolongation of the seal period \u201cborders on the absurd\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926,at *36 (alteration added). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> Martin<\/em>, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 625.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Id. <\/em>(quoting U.S. ex rel. Costa v. Baker & Taylor, Inc.<\/em>, 955 F. Supp. 1188, 1191 (S.D. Cal. 1997)); see also ACLU v. Holder<\/em>, 673 F.3d 245, 254, 257 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing the government\u2019s burden to show \u201cgood cause\u201d to the court for extending the seal period, and the court\u2019s statutory duty to \u201cweigh carefully\u201d such motions for extension).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> Aldridge<\/em>, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21926, at *41.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> Id. <\/em>(citing State Farm & Cas. Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby<\/em>, 580 U.S. 26, 37\u201338 (2016)) (alteration added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> Id. <\/em>(emphasis and alteration added); see also id. <\/em>(noting that, from the standpoint of the defendant-appellants, the slashing of more than half of the government\u2019s damages award \u201cshould be consolation enough in this particular case\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a> See Martin<\/em>, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 624 (finding \u201cwholly inappropriate\u201d the government\u2019s \u201chabitual requests for extensions of the [seal] period\u201d over a four-year period); U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Serenity Hospice Care LLC<\/em>, No. CV 313-001, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121297, at *7\u20138 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2014) (citing Costa<\/em>, 955 F. Supp. at 1189\u201390) (noting that a number of courts \u201chave commented on the dangers of keeping qui tam actions under seal for protracted periods of time\u201d and declining to further delay a case that \u201chas languished for a year and a half on the Court\u2019s docket\u201d); Costa<\/em>, 955 F. Supp. at 1191 (\u201cThis practice of conducting one-sided discovery for months or years while the case is under seal was not contemplated by Congress and is not authorized by the [FCA].\u201d) (alteration added); id. <\/em>at 1189\u201390 (finding no warrant in the statute or legislative history for courts to decide motions to extend the seal period in \u201cdisregard\u201d of defendants\u2019 interest \u201cin building their defense while the evidence is still fresh\u201d and of the public\u2019s \u201cright to monitor the activities of government agencies and the courts\u201d). Another court of appeals, the Fourth Circuit, has emphasized Congress\u2019s intent in the 1986 amendments creating the modern FCA that courts \u201cweigh carefully any [] extension beyond the 60-day [seal] period.\u201d See Holder<\/em>, 673 F.3d at 257 (quoting S. Rep. No. 99-345, at 24\u201325 (1986), reprinted in <\/em>1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5289\u201390).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An eight-year delay in the DOJ\u2019s intervention decision in a False Claims Act case led to the loss of more than half of the damages awarded at trial. A divided Fifth Circuit panel determined that the government\u2019s claims did not relate back to the original complaint, leaving much of the litigated conduct beyond the statute\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[],"publication-type":[8],"class_list":["post-32675","publications","type-publications","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","publication-type-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse - Dinsmore & Shohl<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dinsmore & Shohl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-19T17:18:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/\",\"name\":\"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse - Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-31T19:03:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-19T17:18:41+00:00\",\"description\":\"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"width\":413,\"height\":54,\"caption\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse - Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse","og_description":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/","og_site_name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","article_modified_time":"2025-11-19T17:18:41+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/","name":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse - Dinsmore & Shohl","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg","datePublished":"2023-08-31T19:03:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-19T17:18:41+00:00","description":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Pablo-DOJ-FCA-Header.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/5th-circuit-trims-fca-award-as-dojs-delayed-intervention-runs-into-statute-of-limitations-knocks-seal-provision-misuse\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"5th Circuit Trims FCA Award as DOJ\u2019s Delayed Intervention Runs into Statute of Limitations; Knocks Seal Provision Misuse"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","width":413,"height":54,"caption":"Dinsmore & Shohl"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/32675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publications"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/32675\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60895,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/32675\/revisions\/60895"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32675"},{"taxonomy":"publication-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-type?post=32675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}