|
Remedial v. Punative Damages
The False Claims Act is remedial rather than penal and the
qui tam suits are exclusively within the jurisdiction of District
Courts. Neither the Court of Federal Claims nor the U. S.
Department of Transportation's Board of Contract Appeals
have any jurisdiction over any False C/aims Act qui tam
litigation.
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, Pub.L 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243, § 2354, amending 41 U.S.C. 609.
"This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an
independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or
proceeding, ... or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court."
FRCP 60(b). - Substantive Error.
re·me·di·al - adjective. (1.) Supplying a remedy. (2.) Intended to correct or improve deficient skills in a specific subject ~ remedial reading. re·me·di·al·ly - adverb
The Supreme Court began its analysis in Stevens with the interpretive presumption that the term person does not include the sovereign. Id. at 1866-7; see also United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.Ed. 1071 (1941); United States v. Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 275, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947).
Second, the Court held that the treble damages provisions of the False Claims Act were, "essentially punitive in nature" and so inconsistent with the presumption against imposition of punitive damages on governmental entities. Id. at 1869. The Court held that while the double damages regime of the False Claims Act which had been in place before 1986 might have been characterized as remedial, the treble damages regime added in 1986 when Congress amended the False Claims Act is truly punitive. Id. at 1869.
Footnote 6. Both the Relators and the United States argue that the damages regime of the False Claims Act is not truly punitive. While decisions prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Stevens may have supported such an argument, the Supreme Court's decision in Stevens is conclusive on this point. The treble damages imposed by the False Claims Act are punitive damages. Stevens, 120 S.Ct. at 1869.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________________ No. 99-30550
________________________________ United States of America, ex rel. William Garibaldi and Carlos Samuel, Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross- Appellants, v. Orleans Parish School Board,
Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________ No. 99-30668 ________________________________ United States of America, ex rel. William Garibaldi and Carlos Samuel, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Orleans Parish School Board, Defendant/Appellant.
_____________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana _____________________________________________ March 28, 2001
Before DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and POGUE(1), Judge.
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
|