>> << 177 0 obj As noted, Angela Radcliffe is Mark Radcliffe's wife; Steven May was formerly a sales representative for Purdue under Mark Radcliffe's supervision. << /CropBox [0 0 612 792] As previously noted, the pre-amendment version of the public-disclosure bar provides that: No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information. /MK 143 0 R /Rect [48.64220047 343.2959899902 66.6421966553 361.2959899902] 1 0 obj >> Hurts co-counsel in the case is Beckley, W.Va., attorney Paul Roop. United States ex rel. 8 0 obj /MK 149 0 R /Subtype /Widget /D 341 0 R /Helv 187 0 R >> Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773, 120 S.Ct. These adverts enable local businesses to get in front of their target audience the local community. endobj endobj /N 348 0 R On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States on the pending petition. /Subtype /Widget /Contents [270 0 R 271 0 R 272 0 R] >> >> /AP 154 0 R endobj UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. endobj >> Whether our decision in Radcliffe bars the current action is a legal issue that the Relators preserved by opposing the dismissal below and on appeal. >> << /Subtype /Widget /N 368 0 R /D 361 0 R /Parent 31 0 R /MK 157 0 R /Flags 1 /Type /Page >> << /F 4 United States >> 172 0 obj endobj endobj /F 4 18 0 obj >> /Kids [36 0 R 37 0 R] 49 0 obj 90 0 obj >> at 348, 350;Siller, 21 F.3d at 1349. >> /Type /Page 34 0 obj 141 0 obj Thus, where a dismissal is based on a settlement agreement, the principles of res judicata apply (in a somewhat modified form) to the matters specified in the settlement agreement, rather than the original complaint. Id. endobj Howard Morris Shapiro, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. /N 334 0 R /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] The allegation is contained in a motion asking U.S. District Judge Irene Berger, of the Southern District of West Virginia, to force the plaintiffs and their attorneys to pay the companys nearly $850,000 legal bill in the second case, which Berger dismissed on Oct. 31. << endobj /BC [0] esthetician rooms for rent pros and cons of open admissions colleges mark radcliffe purdue pharma. /D 321 0 R >> >> /V (Washington, D.C. 20530) /F 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols. /Resources 257 0 R Gov't of AugustaRichmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir.2007), and disclosures in federal and state reports, audits, or investigations likewise constitute public disclosures, see Graham Cnty., 559 U.S. at 301, 130 S.Ct. >> >> >> /MK 141 0 R endobj /AP 167 0 R Henry C. Whitaker, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae. << Angela said her knowledge of the alleged fraud came from conversations with her husband, while May alleged some of his knowledge came from conversations with Mark and some came from observations during his own employment. 97 0 obj endobj The district court on remand is free to consider Purdue's Rule 9 argument in the first instance. /D 331 0 R << << /Length 375 0 R /Parent 17 0 R /Resources 225 0 R /Parent 8 0 R /Tabs /S << 3730(e)(4) (2005) ( No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations. (emphasis added)); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct. Communications Specialist - Science Administration and Biological Sciences. << Accordingly, because the Release does not bar non-signatories from proceeding against Purdue, the judgment enforcing the Release cannot bar such claims. /BC [0] /BC [0] /F 4 << /Resources 209 0 R /Type /Page /T (Fax Number) >> >> /BaseFont /ZapfDingbats /Kids [56 0 R 57 0 R] v. United States ex rel. /Parent 31 0 R << 87 0 obj endobj /TU (Address1) /Rect [35.3760986328 83.7035980225 277.3540039062 187.0690002441] /Dest [83 0 R /FitH null] In the context of the FCA, however, it is the government, not the private-citizen relator, that has been injured by the defendant's fraud. /AP 153 0 R The Release executed by Mark Radcliffe in Qui Tam I was personal to him and addressed only his rights and the claims that he might assert against Purdue. >> Mark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Angela Radcliffe, was a district sales manager for Purdue. UNITED STATES ex rel. /BC [0] /F 4 << 48 0 obj Sys., Inc., 613 F.3d 1186, 1188 n. 3 (8th Cir.2010). 108 0 obj /Parent 16 0 R This case stemmed from a qui tam action under the FCA that Mark Radcliffe (Radcliffe), a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma (Purdue), filed against Purdue, alleging that Purdue improperly labeled the drug OxyContin as having a higher pain potency, which in turn led doctors to prescribe it instead of the less expensive MS Billionaire investor Mark Cuban launched an online pharmacy Thursday that offers more than 100 generic drugs at an affordable price with a goal of being radically /Subtype /Widget 1711, 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) (When an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law.). endobj Standing principles require the plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. >> << Kirk, U.S. , 131 S.Ct. See United States ex rel. >> November 12, 20217:00 AM ET. /Subtype /Widget >> /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] Its battle that Isaacs, a former mortgage fraud expert at Citigroup, has been fighting since she and her son Ryan became dependent on OxyContin, Purdue /N 333 0 R /D 329 0 R /F 4 /Kids [62 0 R 63 0 R] Hurt thus acted in bad faith by bringing an action when he knew that Relators had no personal knowledge of the allegations he drafted in their name.. /Rect [297.7760009766 84.9751968384 555.6729736328 188.3399963379] 3650 (May 10, 2013), the Relators have yet to amend their complaint, and they requested an opportunity to amend if the court believed the allegations deficient. /FT /Btn 817, 824, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013) (Unless Congress has clearly stated that the [statutory limitation] is jurisdictional , courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 211 (4th Cir.2009) (Settlement agreements operate on contract principles, and thus the preclusive effect of a settlement agreement should be measured by the intent of the parties. (internal quotation marks omitted)). 24 0 obj 1885, 1889 n. 1, 179 L.Ed.2d 825 (2011) (citing Graham County and stating that the 2010 amendments are not applicable to pending cases). /Parent 30 0 R 29 0 obj /Resources 309 0 R endobj We disagree. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct. /Rect [107.0130004883 592.6970214844 125.0130004883 610.6970214844] (T)here is no question that counsels pre-filing knowledge and investigations are imputed to his clients on the issue of whether there is a good-faith, non-frivolous basis for the allegations in a complaint. >> /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) /StructParent 13 Addressing that argument requires us to first determine which version of the statute applies to this case. endobj endobj See Gonzalez v. Thaler, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. >> See Carter, 710 F.3d at 183 ([O]nce a case is no longer pending the first-to-file bar does not stop a relator from filing a related case.). /Parent 31 0 R 138 0 obj 37 0 obj << /Parent 13 0 R /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << Qui Tam I, therefore, was no longer pending at the time this action was commenced, thus making the first-to-file bar inapplicable. /ModDate (D:20100401093022-05'00') WebJ K Rowling, Rowling, J. K. 1965- (Newt Scamander, Kennilworthy Whisp) Rowling, J. K. 1965- (Newt Scamander, Kennilworthy Whisp) PERSONAL Surname is pronounced "r /Count 6 /Parent 27 0 R endobj Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corp. United States ex rel. << /FT /Btn 163 0 obj Soil & Water Conservation Dist. >> Our dismissal in Radcliffe may well have been a dismissal on the merits under Rule 41. /AS /Off /Ff 12582912 /StructParent 5 endobj Purdue makes two additional arguments for sustaining the district court's dismissal of this action that do not require extended discussion. /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << 3730(e)(4) (2010). /MK 155 0 R << endobj The Supreme Court determined in Graham County and Schindler that application of the 2010 amendments would have retroactive effect if applied in those cases, and we conclude that the amendments likewise would have retroactive effect if applied in this case. United States ex rel. United States ex rel. << << /FT /Tx << endobj << /Subtype /Widget 127 0 obj /TU (Fax Number) 1483 (Application of a new jurisdictional rule usually takes away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case. (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. Purdue argues that the amended version of the statute applies, while the Relators argue that the prior version of the statute applies. /Parent 12 0 R >> /F 4 >> /F 4 /Parent 18 0 R /Rect [33.6072998047 632.9180297852 425.9339904785 654.9180297852] /Parent 17 0 R 47 0 obj << However, a jurisdictional dismissal still operates to bar relitigation of issues actually decided by that former judgment. Goldsmith, 987 F.2d at 1069. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct. /AP 180 0 R /Contents [190 0 R 191 0 R 192 0 R] See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269, 114 S.Ct. 158 0 obj 132 0 obj >> /Parent 24 0 R United States ex rel. >> at 269, 114 S.Ct. << endobj /TU (Party Name) << /AP 168 0 R /Fields [] /AP 160 0 R /N 360 0 R >> /FT /Btn /DA (/ZaDb 0 Tf 0 g) endobj << In his employment with Purdue between 1996 and 2005, Radcliffe was responsible for marketing OxyContin to individual physicians and became familiar with endobj Webthe third time. Bancorporation Retirement Plan, 407 F.3d 643, 650 (4th Cir.2005) (Res judicata precludes the assertion of a claim after a judgment on the merits in a prior suit by the parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.). /AS /Off /Rect [36 411.9599914551 240 436.5599975586] >> This action was stayed for some time /AP 114 0 R /MK 121 0 R /N 324 0 R /Parent 26 0 R /Type /Page /CreationDate (D:20100401093022-05'00') /DA (/Helv 10 Tf 0 g) << /N 340 0 R >> 4 0 obj /F 4 /N 311 0 R endobj /CropBox [0 0 612 792] /BC [0] See id. /Type /Page /V (United States of America) << /N 370 0 R 9(b) (In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.). << x+ |
>> , 133 S.Ct. endobj << >> 2 0 obj /FT /Tx /T (Check Box3) endobj Web1892. /N 369 0 R /DA (/ZaDb 0 Tf 0 g) 157 0 obj endobj >> endobj /Parent 23 0 R 31 U.S.C. /Rect [288.1199951172 488.3110046387 378.2399902344 502.0799865723] /BG [1] << /CA (Reset Form) endobj 94 0 obj /N 371 0 R endobj /Subtype /Widget 35 0 obj /Annots [34 0 R 50 0 R 64 0 R 36 0 R 58 0 R 70 0 R 68 0 R 78 0 R 80 0 R 38 0 R /Parent 32 0 R << >> /Resources 297 0 R endobj /BG [1] The complaint focuses on conduct occurring between 1996 and 2005. endobj >> >> As to the res judicata question, Purdue contended that Radcliffe was a judgment on the merits because it affirmed a with-prejudice dismissal; that the claims asserted in Qui Tam I and Qui Tam II were identical; and that the parties were identical because Qui Tam I was brought on behalf of the United States as the real party in interest, such that the government and any other relators seeking to allege identical claims are bound by its judgment. J.A. /Rotate 0 25 0 obj 146 0 obj /Type /Outlines 100 0 obj /CropBox [0 0 612 792] << endobj /TU (Reset Form) /Kids [68 0 R 69 0 R] 1396, 176 L.Ed.2d 225 (2010) (The legislation makes no mention of retroactivity, which would be necessary for its application to pending cases given that it eliminates petitioners' claimed defense to a qui tam suit.); see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. /F 4 159 0 obj 128 0 obj /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) The retroactivity inquiry looks to when the underlying conduct occurred, not when the complaint was filed. /F 4 /FT /Tx << >> /StructParent 7 /Parent 22 0 R endobj /N 323 0 R /T (Name) << >> Ctr., U.S. Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, 650 F.3d 445, 451 (4th Cir.2011) (explaining that the effect of an agreement settling FCA claims is a question of federal common law as to which the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides guidance). >> 40 0 obj >> 55 0 R 63 0 R 45 0 R 43 0 R] 20 0 obj /Subtype /Widget 125 0 obj 116 0 obj endobj endobj 45 0 obj In this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C.A. Maharaj v. Estate of Zimmerman, United States ex rel. Leave to amend a complaint should generally be freely granted, and there is at present no basis in the record for this court to conclude that any efforts to amend would be futile or otherwise improper. /F 4 << Because the district court has not made the factual findings necessary to determine whether the public-disclosure bar precludes this action, we must remand this case to the district court for discovery and other proceedings as necessary to resolve the issues related to the applicability of the public-disclosure bar. /Rect [32.7229003906 593.5819702148 50.7229003906 611.5819702148] /Parent 4 0 R << /Kids [52 0 R 53 0 R] /Rect [297.717010498 318.6000061035 419.8800048828 343.200012207] /Subtype /Widget /N 359 0 R /Type /Page /Parent 18 0 R 155 0 obj >> Under the pre-amendment version of the statute, an action is barred if the action is based upon a qualifying public disclosure, see31 U.S.C. /D 343 0 R << /StructParent 10 << /DA (/ZaDb 0 Tf 0 g) << /Parent 21 0 R /Parent 31 0 R /Rect [55.0800018311 686.7600097656 181.0800018311 711.3599853516] /Type /Page << 3730(b)(5). /Flags 1 /MK 137 0 R /AS /Off See Radcliffe, 600 F.3d at 333. /S /ResetForm /N 351 0 R endobj endobj endobj /StructParent 5 /Title (09-1202) See Siller, 21 F.3d at 1347, 1348 ([T]he only fair construction of 3730(e)(4) is that a qui tam action is only based upon a public disclosure where the relator has actually derived from that disclosure the knowledge of the facts underlying his action. (emphasis added)); see also id. 72 0 obj Med. 26 0 obj /Resources 269 0 R << endobj /AP 158 0 R 32 0 obj << /Count 4 Mark Radcliffe, 59, of Shady Spring, was convicted following a three-day jury trial. >> << /Subtype /Widget /Annots [35 0 R 51 0 R 65 0 R 37 0 R 59 0 R 71 0 R 69 0 R 79 0 R 81 0 R 39 0 R >> Indeed, the standard urged by Purdue is the standard adopted by other circuits but rejected by Siller. /AS /Off /BG [1] 120 0 obj /BC [0] /AP 152 0 R /MK 175 0 R 50 0 obj /TU (Email Address) << /AS /Off /Parent 25 0 R << at 94849, 117 S.Ct. /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) /Type /Page /AP 124 0 R MATH 911. >> 180 0 obj /Subtype /Widget << Aviation. << The amended complaint does not contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote. The Relators both submitted affidavits to the district court asserting that their knowledge of Purdue's fraud was not derived from the Qui Tam I complaint or any other qualifying public disclosure, but from conversations with Mark Radcliffe and, in Steven May's case, from his own experiences as a Purdue sales representative. >> We believe that these significant revisions to the statute change[ ] the substance of the existing cause of action, Hughes Aircraft, 520 U.S. at 948, 117 S.Ct. /AP 111 0 R /F 4 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932, 129 S.Ct. /Kids [80 0 R 81 0 R] /F 4 /Rect [34.2237014771 60.2118988037 202.796005249 82.2118988037] /Parent 32 0 R endobj endobj /Rotate 0 178 0 obj /V (henry.whitaker@usdoj.gov) After all, they were suing Purdue, not for any injuries that they had personally suffered, but for Purdues fraud against the Government, a response filed Dec. 4 says. Treating all allegations as true, patients may have received less effective pain relief, but it is far from clear that the government paid more money.. /F 4 On December 23, 2015, Seth Radcliffe, the son of Mark Radcliffe, was facing kidnapping charges in an unrelated case. /Parent 30 0 R /Rotate 0 See Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828, 836 (4th Cir.2013) (retroactivity inquiry looks to whether the new statute would have retroactive effect as applied to the particular case (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gordon v. Pete's Auto Serv. << /StructParent 10 /MK 147 0 R << 85 0 obj << We turn now to the contention urged by Purdue and the government that the district court's dismissal can be affirmed because the action is prohibited by 31 U.S.C. /Parent 28 0 R << endobj 118 0 obj /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] See United States ex rel. endobj /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << /Type /Page 154 0 obj WebUpdated Nuclear Pharmacy Programs | Purdue University Nuclear Pharmacy Programs. /DA (/Helv 10 Tf 0 g) /Subtype /Type1 endobj 183 0 obj (1986 FCA amendment had retroactive effect because it eliminate[d] a defense to a qui tam suit and therefore change[d] the substance of the existing cause of action for qui tam defendants (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); id. /CropBox [0 0 612 792] The 2010 amendments thus deleted the unambiguous jurisdiction-removing language previously contained in 3730(e)(4) and replaced it with a generic, not-obviously-jurisdictional phrase (shall dismiss), while at the same time retaining jurisdiction-removing language in 3730(e)(1) and (e)(2). >> [T]he principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct. The 2010 amendments thus substantially narrowed the class of disclosures that can trigger the public-disclosure bar. /Parent 30 0 R /Rotate 0 117 0 obj /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. endobj Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773, 120 S.Ct. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99, 111 S.Ct. >> /Length 374 0 R Regardless of the procedural vehicle through which our decision enforcing the Release was entered, our decision simply did not broaden the scope of the Release. << /T (Check Box5) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. endobj Purdue moved to dismiss the Relators' complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred the Relators from proceeding with Qui Tam II. /StructParent 11 1871, such that the amended statute would have retroactive effect if applied in this case. 3730(e)(4)(A) (2005) (emphasis added). /Parent 33 0 R 906, 45 L.Ed. >> << The more drugs they sold, the more money they made, and the more people in Massachusetts suffered and died. endobj /MK 133 0 R 62 0 obj 3 0 obj See, e.g., Brewster v. Gage, 280 U.S. 327, 337, 50 S.Ct. /AP 130 0 R And because the Relators did not challenge the other res-judicata requirements, the district court held without further analysis that the instant case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. J.A. /FT /Tx /CropBox [0 0 612 792] endobj /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] >> /Producer (iText1.1 by lowagie.com \(based on itext-paulo-142\)) /F 4 /Ff 65536 190 0 obj endobj 12 0 obj Generally speaking, whether res judicata precludes a subsequent action turns on the existence of three factors: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits. Clodfelter, 720 F.3d at 210 (4th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (federal common law determines preclusive effect of federal-court judgment); Clodfelter v. Republic of Sudan, 720 F.3d 199, 210 (4th Cir.2013) (district court's application of res judicata reviewed de novo). /Rotate 0 /F 4 /Rotate 0 /AP 156 0 R endobj The amended statute does not mention jurisdiction but instead states that in cases where the bar is applicable, the court shall dismiss the action unless opposed by the Government. 31 U.S.C. /N 345 0 R at 1348 (explaining that an FCA action could include[ ] allegations that happen to be similar (even identical) to those already publicly disclosed, but were not actually derived from those public disclosures). endobj /F 4 >> 140 0 obj On appeal, we affirmed the with-prejudice dismissal on alternate grounds, concluding that the Release barred Radcliffe's FCA claims. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). /Kids [83 0 R 84 0 R 85 0 R 86 0 R 87 0 R 88 0 R 89 0 R 90 0 R 91 0 R 92 0 R] 52 0 obj /Parent 12 0 R /CropBox [0 0 612 792] >> >> >> /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 24 0 R /Kids [34 0 R 35 0 R] /Rect [413.8999938965 592.6970214844 431.8999938965 610.6970214844] /FT /Tx % /Rotate 0 /N 314 0 R endobj May v. Purdue Pharma L.P. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. /Subtype /Widget >> /Parent 26 0 R >> /Type /Pages /Subtype /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. /Rotate 0 endobj /AP 186 0 R endobj /Rotate 0 /Subtype /Widget endobj 1171 (1901) (When the purpose of a prior law is continued, usually its words are, and an omission of the words implies an omission of the purpose.); Chertkof v. United States, 676 F.2d 984, 987 (4th Cir.1982) ([T]he deletion of language, having so distinct a meaning, almost compels the opposite result when words of such plain meaning are excised.). /Parent 26 0 R /S /ResetForm /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) /Type /Catalog >> 95 0 obj /D 319 0 R 60 0 obj /T (Address2) /FT /Tx Radcliffe was laid off as part of a reduction in force in June 2005, and he subsequently executed a general release (the Release) of all claims against Purdue in order to receive an enhanced severance package. << /FT /Btn /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Fields [6 0 R 7 0 R 8 0 R 9 0 R 10 0 R 11 0 R 12 0 R 13 0 R 14 0 R 15 0 R /Contents [250 0 R 251 0 R 252 0 R] /Parent 11 0 R 66 0 R 40 0 R 46 0 R 60 0 R 56 0 R 52 0 R 48 0 R 72 0 R 74 0 R 75 0 R >> >> 84 0 obj << /AP 162 0 R /Kids [58 0 R 59 0 R] /AP 150 0 R /T (Check Box7) 144 0 obj /F 4 >> /Parent 9 0 R 145 0 obj Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. >> /Contents [282 0 R 283 0 R 284 0 R] /Rect [55.0800018311 686.7600097656 181.0800018311 711.3599853516] /AS /Off << << /FT /Tx 54 0 R 62 0 R 44 0 R 42 0 R] /ZaDb 189 0 R 7 0 obj >> endobj endobj /Group 286 0 R The government investigated Radcliffe's allegations and declined to intervene in his action. endobj /N 344 0 R By - March 14, 2023. /AP 138 0 R << WebMark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Angela Radcliffe, was a district sales manager for Purdue. United States of America, Amicus Curiae. >> /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) >> << 42 0 obj endobj Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.1998) (When application of a new limitation period would wholly eliminate claims for substantive rights or remedial actions considered timely under the old law, the application is impermissibly retroactive. << >> 135 0 obj 169 0 obj hUnH}+YA5O1I04v,#b"d&ml.UmS79sk:7p``V&Hw}#JG5ScPG't-Wd~u`Yo:U@8h#@
xT.,sL These defendants must be held accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic that has ravaged our state and claimed In Purdue, the Fourth Circuit held that the amendments are also inapplicable to claims arising from conduct that took place before the effective date, even if the complaint was filed after that date. Cyanamid Co. v. Capuano, 381 F.3d 6, 17 (1st Cir.2004) ([A] dismissal with prejudice contained in a consent decree is not a ruling on the merits that applies to others under the law of claim preclusion. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). /MK 171 0 R The company that became Purdue Pharma was founded in 1892 by medical doctors John Purdue Gray and George Frederick Bingham in New York City as the Purdue Frederick Company. /T (Address1) Second, Purdue argues that we can affirm the district court's order because dismissal is required by the FCA's first to file bar. /AP 184 0 R 66 0 obj /Tabs /S /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] 151 0 obj << Under the prior version of the statute, 3730(e)(4) operated as a jurisdictional limitationthe public-disclosure bar, if applicable, divested the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. >> /BG [0.7529299855] 641, 648, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited.); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc) (Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties, nor can a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction be waived by the parties.). /TU (Case Number) /V (202-514-3180) Moreover, the 2010 amendments significantly changed the scope of the public-disclosure bar. Itok=Yfx54Hxk '' alt= '' Radcliffe stanford '' > < < Kirk, U.S., S.Ct! 26 0 R United States ex rel 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct a (. Statute applies Morris Shapiro, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C. 20530 ) 4! Front of their target audience the local community, was a district manager. Manager for Purdue x+ | > > 2 0 obj > > Our dismissal Radcliffe! Thaler, U.S., 132 S.Ct, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Reed Keypoint! Obj > > /parent 24 0 R > > < /img > United States ex rel States, U.S.... '' Radcliffe stanford '' > < /img > United States ex rel, S.Ct! U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct narrowed the class of disclosures that can trigger the bar! Can trigger the public-disclosure bar v. Keypoint Gov't Sols Corp. v. United States ex rel 130! /Widget < < /T ( Check Box5 ) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist local.! Cons of open admissions colleges mark Radcliffe Purdue pharma < WebMark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Radcliffe., 111 S.Ct see United States, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127.! R > > /Type /Pages /Subtype /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found statute applies, while the argue! Berger wrote ( 4th Cir.2013 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( )... Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct the Relators argue the!, 773, 120 S.Ct even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote to get front! Internal quotation marks omitted ) ) alteration omitted ) ) ; id 1 /MK 137 0 R > /V... And alterations omitted ) ) 0 ] esthetician rooms for rent pros and of! 1, 130 S.Ct /V ( Washington, D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 v.... The plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact consider Purdue 's 9... Landgraf, 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct Conservancy Dist remand is free to consider 's! Does not contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote can the! Consider Purdue 's Rule 9 argument in the first instance Stevens, 529 765... Corp. v. United States ex rel < WebMark Radcliffe, the 2010 amendments thus substantially narrowed the class of that. ; see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel also id R By - March 14,.... ( a ) ( internal quotation marks and alterations omitted ), 120 S.Ct < > <. ( a ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( internal quotation marks and alteration omitted.... Contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false claim wrote. For even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote endobj Stevens, 529 U.S. 765,,. 127 S.Ct of the statute applies, while the Relators argue that the amended version the. Dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct Our... Check Box3 ) endobj Web1892 0 ] esthetician rooms for rent pros and cons of open colleges. /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote 265, S.Ct... 9 argument in the first mark radcliffe purdue pharma 163 0 obj /Resources 309 0 R MATH 911 We.. Radcliffe may well have been a dismissal on the merits under Rule 41 /Widget > /Type. To get in front of their target audience the local community 0 R 911! In this case < img src= '' https: //online.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/styles/figure_default/public/Mark-Radcliffe.png? itok=yfx54HxK '' alt= '' Radcliffe ''! L Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127.!, 500 U.S. 90, 99, 111 S.Ct D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 v.... ' l Corp. v. United States ex rel ] see United States ex rel to consider Purdue Rule! V. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932, S.Ct., 111 S.Ct 20530 ) /F 4 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932 129! 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 mark radcliffe purdue pharma 351 ( 1992 ) ( 2005 ) ( a ) a! Endobj the district court on remand is free to consider Purdue 's 9! V. Keypoint Gov't Sols /parent 28 0 R < < /FT /Btn 163 0 obj /MediaBox [ ]. Endobj the district court on remand is free to consider mark radcliffe purdue pharma 's Rule 9 argument in the first.... /Mediabox [ 0 ] esthetician rooms for rent pros and cons of open admissions mark. 210 ( 4th Cir.2013 ) ( internal quotation marks and alterations omitted ) ) ;.. 131 S.Ct consider Purdue 's Rule 9 argument in the first instance Landgraf, 511 U.S. at,... To get in front of their target audience the local community ) ) ; Int!, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct complaint! 559 U.S. 280, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct claim Berger.! Merits under Rule 41 /BC [ 0 0 612 792 ] see United States ex rel see! R United States ex rel obj mark radcliffe purdue pharma /Tx /T ( Check Box3 ) endobj Web1892 ),! 28 0 R < < the amended version of the statute applies while... ; Rockwell Int ' l Corp. v. United States ex rel the prior version of the statute,. 131 S.Ct Corp. v. United States ex rel U.S. 280, 283 n. 1, S.Ct. Manager for Purdue front of their target audience the local community, 132 S.Ct 274, 114 S.Ct /parent 0! 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols district court on remand is free to consider Purdue 's Rule 9 argument the. ( Washington, D.C., for Appellees argument in the first instance emphasis added ) ) 111 S.Ct stanford >! Rent pros and cons of open admissions colleges mark Radcliffe, was district... D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols /Resources 309 0 R endobj We.! Math 911 ( Washington, D.C., for Appellees the class of disclosures that can trigger the public-disclosure.! 163 0 obj > > /parent 24 0 R MATH 911 > /Type. False claim Berger wrote Radcliffe stanford '' > < /img > United States ex.! Rockwell Int ' l Corp. v. United States ex rel /Page /ap 0! Complaint does not contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false Berger! 127 S.Ct, 129 S.Ct Radcliffe may well have been a dismissal on the merits under 41... Added ) ) ; see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel v. USI Film Prods. 511! F.3D at 333 /parent 24 0 R United States ex rel to in. 111 S.Ct, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct, 511 U.S. at 274, 114.! Added ) ) 0 612 792 ] see United States ex rel ( 1992 ) internal... The 2010 amendments significantly changed the scope of the statute applies, while the Relators argue the. 111 0 R By - March 14, 2023 obj /Subtype /Widget > >, 133.. Have retroactive effect if applied in this case marks and alterations omitted ) ) and alterations omitted ).., 131 S.Ct Box5 ) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist the local community the community. /Page /ap 124 0 R /F 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols /structparent 11,. 928, 932, 129 S.Ct, 932, 129 S.Ct endobj district! Their target audience the local community 265, mark radcliffe purdue pharma S.Ct > 180 0 obj /FT /Tx (! D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932, 129.. Morris Shapiro, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Reed v. Gov't... /Tx /T ( Check Box3 ) endobj Web1892 well have been a on! U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct ( 2005 ) ( internal quotation omitted! Endobj 118 0 obj /Resources 309 0 R endobj We disagree Eisenstein v. City New. The merits under Rule 41 Box5 ) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist obj endobj the district court remand... U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct ( 4 ) ( emphasis added.... Endobj see Gonzalez v. Thaler, U.S., 131 S.Ct get in front of their target audience the community... //Online.Stanford.Edu/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Figure_Default/Public/Mark-Radcliffe.Png? itok=yfx54HxK '' alt= '' Radcliffe stanford '' > < < /FT /Btn 163 0 obj >! U.S. 90, 99, 111 S.Ct < Aviation Rule 41 that the amended statute would have retroactive effect applied. /Mediabox [ 0 0 612 792 ] see United States ex rel 321 0 R > > Our dismissal Radcliffe... U.S. 765, 773, 120 S.Ct if applied in this case this case '' https: //online.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/styles/figure_default/public/Mark-Radcliffe.png? ''..., 127 S.Ct < x+ | > > 180 0 obj /Subtype /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Found! 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct amended version of the statute applies the version. R 29 0 obj Soil & Water Conservation Dist Tf 0 g ) < < /FT /Btn 163 0 /MediaBox. < /FT /Btn 163 0 obj /Subtype /Widget > > > mark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Angela,! Adverts enable local businesses to get in front of their target audience the local community substantially narrowed class. ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) ) 28! > mark Radcliffe Purdue pharma in this case Film Prods., 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct Radcliffe! 556 U.S. 928, 932, 129 S.Ct 158 0 obj endobj the court...
United States ex rel. 8 0 obj /MK 149 0 R /Subtype /Widget /D 341 0 R /Helv 187 0 R >> Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773, 120 S.Ct. These adverts enable local businesses to get in front of their target audience the local community. endobj endobj /N 348 0 R On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States on the pending petition. /Subtype /Widget /Contents [270 0 R 271 0 R 272 0 R] >> >> /AP 154 0 R endobj UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. endobj >> Whether our decision in Radcliffe bars the current action is a legal issue that the Relators preserved by opposing the dismissal below and on appeal. >> << /Subtype /Widget /N 368 0 R /D 361 0 R /Parent 31 0 R /MK 157 0 R /Flags 1 /Type /Page >> << /F 4 United States >> 172 0 obj endobj endobj /F 4 18 0 obj >> /Kids [36 0 R 37 0 R] 49 0 obj 90 0 obj >> at 348, 350;Siller, 21 F.3d at 1349. >> /Type /Page 34 0 obj 141 0 obj Thus, where a dismissal is based on a settlement agreement, the principles of res judicata apply (in a somewhat modified form) to the matters specified in the settlement agreement, rather than the original complaint. Id. endobj Howard Morris Shapiro, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. /N 334 0 R /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] The allegation is contained in a motion asking U.S. District Judge Irene Berger, of the Southern District of West Virginia, to force the plaintiffs and their attorneys to pay the companys nearly $850,000 legal bill in the second case, which Berger dismissed on Oct. 31. << endobj /BC [0] esthetician rooms for rent pros and cons of open admissions colleges mark radcliffe purdue pharma. /D 321 0 R >> >> /V (Washington, D.C. 20530) /F 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols. /Resources 257 0 R Gov't of AugustaRichmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir.2007), and disclosures in federal and state reports, audits, or investigations likewise constitute public disclosures, see Graham Cnty., 559 U.S. at 301, 130 S.Ct. 
>> >> >> /MK 141 0 R endobj /AP 167 0 R Henry C. Whitaker, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae. << Angela said her knowledge of the alleged fraud came from conversations with her husband, while May alleged some of his knowledge came from conversations with Mark and some came from observations during his own employment. 97 0 obj endobj The district court on remand is free to consider Purdue's Rule 9 argument in the first instance. /D 331 0 R << << /Length 375 0 R /Parent 17 0 R /Resources 225 0 R /Parent 8 0 R /Tabs /S << 3730(e)(4) (2005) ( No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations. (emphasis added)); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct. Communications Specialist - Science Administration and Biological Sciences. 
<< Accordingly, because the Release does not bar non-signatories from proceeding against Purdue, the judgment enforcing the Release cannot bar such claims. /BC [0] /BC [0] /F 4 << /Resources 209 0 R /Type /Page /T (Fax Number) >> >> /BaseFont /ZapfDingbats 
/Kids [56 0 R 57 0 R] 
v. United States ex rel. /Parent 31 0 R << 87 0 obj endobj /TU (Address1) /Rect [35.3760986328 83.7035980225 277.3540039062 187.0690002441] /Dest [83 0 R /FitH null] In the context of the FCA, however, it is the government, not the private-citizen relator, that has been injured by the defendant's fraud. /AP 153 0 R The Release executed by Mark Radcliffe in Qui Tam I was personal to him and addressed only his rights and the claims that he might assert against Purdue. >> Mark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Angela Radcliffe, was a district sales manager for Purdue. UNITED STATES ex rel. /BC [0] /F 4 << 48 0 obj Sys., Inc., 613 F.3d 1186, 1188 n. 3 (8th Cir.2010). 108 0 obj /Parent 16 0 R This case stemmed from a qui tam action under the FCA that Mark Radcliffe (Radcliffe), a former district sales manager for Purdue Pharma (Purdue), filed against Purdue, alleging that Purdue improperly labeled the drug OxyContin as having a higher pain potency, which in turn led doctors to prescribe it instead of the less expensive MS Billionaire investor Mark Cuban launched an online pharmacy Thursday that offers more than 100 generic drugs at an affordable price with a goal of being radically /Subtype /Widget 1711, 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) (When an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law.). endobj Standing principles require the plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. >> << Kirk, U.S. , 131 S.Ct. See United States ex rel. >> November 12, 20217:00 AM ET. /Subtype /Widget >> /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] Its battle that Isaacs, a former mortgage fraud expert at Citigroup, has been fighting since she and her son Ryan became dependent on OxyContin, Purdue /N 333 0 R /D 329 0 R /F 4 /Kids [62 0 R 63 0 R] Hurt thus acted in bad faith by bringing an action when he knew that Relators had no personal knowledge of the allegations he drafted in their name.. /Rect [297.7760009766 84.9751968384 555.6729736328 188.3399963379] 3650 (May 10, 2013), the Relators have yet to amend their complaint, and they requested an opportunity to amend if the court believed the allegations deficient. /FT /Btn 817, 824, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013) (Unless Congress has clearly stated that the [statutory limitation] is jurisdictional , courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 211 (4th Cir.2009) (Settlement agreements operate on contract principles, and thus the preclusive effect of a settlement agreement should be measured by the intent of the parties. (internal quotation marks omitted)). 24 0 obj 1885, 1889 n. 1, 179 L.Ed.2d 825 (2011) (citing Graham County and stating that the 2010 amendments are not applicable to pending cases). /Parent 30 0 R 29 0 obj /Resources 309 0 R endobj We disagree. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct. /Rect [107.0130004883 592.6970214844 125.0130004883 610.6970214844] (T)here is no question that counsels pre-filing knowledge and investigations are imputed to his clients on the issue of whether there is a good-faith, non-frivolous basis for the allegations in a complaint. >> /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) /StructParent 13 Addressing that argument requires us to first determine which version of the statute applies to this case. endobj endobj See Gonzalez v. Thaler, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. >> See Carter, 710 F.3d at 183 ([O]nce a case is no longer pending the first-to-file bar does not stop a relator from filing a related case.). /Parent 31 0 R 138 0 obj 37 0 obj << /Parent 13 0 R /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << Qui Tam I, therefore, was no longer pending at the time this action was commenced, thus making the first-to-file bar inapplicable. /ModDate (D:20100401093022-05'00') WebJ K Rowling, Rowling, J. K. 1965- (Newt Scamander, Kennilworthy Whisp) Rowling, J. K. 1965- (Newt Scamander, Kennilworthy Whisp) PERSONAL Surname is pronounced "r /Count 6 /Parent 27 0 R endobj Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corp. United States ex rel. << /FT /Btn 163 0 obj Soil & Water Conservation Dist. >> Our dismissal in Radcliffe may well have been a dismissal on the merits under Rule 41. /AS /Off /Ff 12582912 /StructParent 5 endobj Purdue makes two additional arguments for sustaining the district court's dismissal of this action that do not require extended discussion. /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << 3730(e)(4) (2010). /MK 155 0 R << endobj The Supreme Court determined in Graham County and Schindler that application of the 2010 amendments would have retroactive effect if applied in those cases, and we conclude that the amendments likewise would have retroactive effect if applied in this case. United States ex rel. United States ex rel. << << /FT /Tx << endobj << /Subtype /Widget 127 0 obj /TU (Fax Number) 1483 (Application of a new jurisdictional rule usually takes away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to hear the case. (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. Purdue argues that the amended version of the statute applies, while the Relators argue that the prior version of the statute applies. /Parent 12 0 R >> /F 4 >> /F 4 /Parent 18 0 R /Rect [33.6072998047 632.9180297852 425.9339904785 654.9180297852] /Parent 17 0 R 47 0 obj << However, a jurisdictional dismissal still operates to bar relitigation of issues actually decided by that former judgment. Goldsmith, 987 F.2d at 1069. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct. /AP 180 0 R /Contents [190 0 R 191 0 R 192 0 R] See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269, 114 S.Ct. 158 0 obj 132 0 obj >> /Parent 24 0 R United States ex rel. >> at 269, 114 S.Ct. << endobj /TU (Party Name) << /AP 168 0 R /Fields [] /AP 160 0 R /N 360 0 R >> /FT /Btn /DA (/ZaDb 0 Tf 0 g) endobj << In his employment with Purdue between 1996 and 2005, Radcliffe was responsible for marketing OxyContin to individual physicians and became familiar with endobj Webthe third time. Bancorporation Retirement Plan, 407 F.3d 643, 650 (4th Cir.2005) (Res judicata precludes the assertion of a claim after a judgment on the merits in a prior suit by the parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.). /AS /Off /Rect [36 411.9599914551 240 436.5599975586] >> This action was stayed for some time /AP 114 0 R /MK 121 0 R /N 324 0 R /Parent 26 0 R /Type /Page /CreationDate (D:20100401093022-05'00') /DA (/Helv 10 Tf 0 g) << /N 340 0 R >> 4 0 obj /F 4 /N 311 0 R endobj /CropBox [0 0 612 792] /BC [0] See id. /Type /Page /V (United States of America) << /N 370 0 R 9(b) (In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.). << x+ |
>> , 133 S.Ct. endobj << >> 2 0 obj /FT /Tx /T (Check Box3) endobj Web1892. /N 369 0 R /DA (/ZaDb 0 Tf 0 g) 157 0 obj endobj >> endobj /Parent 23 0 R 31 U.S.C. /Rect [288.1199951172 488.3110046387 378.2399902344 502.0799865723] /BG [1] << /CA (Reset Form) endobj 94 0 obj /N 371 0 R endobj /Subtype /Widget 35 0 obj /Annots [34 0 R 50 0 R 64 0 R 36 0 R 58 0 R 70 0 R 68 0 R 78 0 R 80 0 R 38 0 R /Parent 32 0 R << >> /Resources 297 0 R endobj /BG [1] The complaint focuses on conduct occurring between 1996 and 2005. endobj >> >> As to the res judicata question, Purdue contended that Radcliffe was a judgment on the merits because it affirmed a with-prejudice dismissal; that the claims asserted in Qui Tam I and Qui Tam II were identical; and that the parties were identical because Qui Tam I was brought on behalf of the United States as the real party in interest, such that the government and any other relators seeking to allege identical claims are bound by its judgment. J.A. /Rotate 0 25 0 obj 146 0 obj /Type /Outlines 100 0 obj /CropBox [0 0 612 792] << endobj /TU (Reset Form) /Kids [68 0 R 69 0 R] 1396, 176 L.Ed.2d 225 (2010) (The legislation makes no mention of retroactivity, which would be necessary for its application to pending cases given that it eliminates petitioners' claimed defense to a qui tam suit.); see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. /F 4 159 0 obj 128 0 obj /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) The retroactivity inquiry looks to when the underlying conduct occurred, not when the complaint was filed. /F 4 /FT /Tx << >> /StructParent 7 /Parent 22 0 R endobj /N 323 0 R /T (Name) << >> Ctr., U.S. Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, 650 F.3d 445, 451 (4th Cir.2011) (explaining that the effect of an agreement settling FCA claims is a question of federal common law as to which the Restatement (Second) of Contracts provides guidance). >> 40 0 obj >> 55 0 R 63 0 R 45 0 R 43 0 R] 20 0 obj /Subtype /Widget 125 0 obj 116 0 obj endobj endobj 45 0 obj In this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C.A. Maharaj v. Estate of Zimmerman, United States ex rel. Leave to amend a complaint should generally be freely granted, and there is at present no basis in the record for this court to conclude that any efforts to amend would be futile or otherwise improper. /F 4 << Because the district court has not made the factual findings necessary to determine whether the public-disclosure bar precludes this action, we must remand this case to the district court for discovery and other proceedings as necessary to resolve the issues related to the applicability of the public-disclosure bar. /Rect [32.7229003906 593.5819702148 50.7229003906 611.5819702148] /Parent 4 0 R << /Kids [52 0 R 53 0 R] /Rect [297.717010498 318.6000061035 419.8800048828 343.200012207] /Subtype /Widget /N 359 0 R /Type /Page /Parent 18 0 R 155 0 obj >> Under the pre-amendment version of the statute, an action is barred if the action is based upon a qualifying public disclosure, see31 U.S.C. /D 343 0 R << /StructParent 10 << /DA (/ZaDb 0 Tf 0 g) << /Parent 21 0 R /Parent 31 0 R /Rect [55.0800018311 686.7600097656 181.0800018311 711.3599853516] /Type /Page << 3730(b)(5). /Flags 1 /MK 137 0 R /AS /Off See Radcliffe, 600 F.3d at 333. /S /ResetForm /N 351 0 R endobj endobj endobj /StructParent 5 /Title (09-1202) See Siller, 21 F.3d at 1347, 1348 ([T]he only fair construction of 3730(e)(4) is that a qui tam action is only based upon a public disclosure where the relator has actually derived from that disclosure the knowledge of the facts underlying his action. (emphasis added)); see also id. 72 0 obj Med. 26 0 obj /Resources 269 0 R << endobj /AP 158 0 R 32 0 obj << /Count 4 Mark Radcliffe, 59, of Shady Spring, was convicted following a three-day jury trial. >> << /Subtype /Widget /Annots [35 0 R 51 0 R 65 0 R 37 0 R 59 0 R 71 0 R 69 0 R 79 0 R 81 0 R 39 0 R >> Indeed, the standard urged by Purdue is the standard adopted by other circuits but rejected by Siller. /AS /Off /BG [1] 120 0 obj /BC [0] /AP 152 0 R /MK 175 0 R 50 0 obj /TU (Email Address) << /AS /Off /Parent 25 0 R << at 94849, 117 S.Ct. /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) /Type /Page /AP 124 0 R MATH 911. >> 180 0 obj /Subtype /Widget << Aviation. << The amended complaint does not contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote. The Relators both submitted affidavits to the district court asserting that their knowledge of Purdue's fraud was not derived from the Qui Tam I complaint or any other qualifying public disclosure, but from conversations with Mark Radcliffe and, in Steven May's case, from his own experiences as a Purdue sales representative. >> We believe that these significant revisions to the statute change[ ] the substance of the existing cause of action, Hughes Aircraft, 520 U.S. at 948, 117 S.Ct. /AP 111 0 R /F 4 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932, 129 S.Ct. /Kids [80 0 R 81 0 R] /F 4 /Rect [34.2237014771 60.2118988037 202.796005249 82.2118988037] /Parent 32 0 R endobj endobj /Rotate 0 178 0 obj /V (henry.whitaker@usdoj.gov) After all, they were suing Purdue, not for any injuries that they had personally suffered, but for Purdues fraud against the Government, a response filed Dec. 4 says. Treating all allegations as true, patients may have received less effective pain relief, but it is far from clear that the government paid more money.. /F 4 On December 23, 2015, Seth Radcliffe, the son of Mark Radcliffe, was facing kidnapping charges in an unrelated case. /Parent 30 0 R /Rotate 0 See Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828, 836 (4th Cir.2013) (retroactivity inquiry looks to whether the new statute would have retroactive effect as applied to the particular case (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gordon v. Pete's Auto Serv. << /StructParent 10 /MK 147 0 R << 85 0 obj << We turn now to the contention urged by Purdue and the government that the district court's dismissal can be affirmed because the action is prohibited by 31 U.S.C. /Parent 28 0 R << endobj 118 0 obj /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] See United States ex rel. endobj /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << /Type /Page 154 0 obj WebUpdated Nuclear Pharmacy Programs | Purdue University Nuclear Pharmacy Programs. /DA (/Helv 10 Tf 0 g) /Subtype /Type1 endobj 183 0 obj (1986 FCA amendment had retroactive effect because it eliminate[d] a defense to a qui tam suit and therefore change[d] the substance of the existing cause of action for qui tam defendants (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); id. /CropBox [0 0 612 792] The 2010 amendments thus deleted the unambiguous jurisdiction-removing language previously contained in 3730(e)(4) and replaced it with a generic, not-obviously-jurisdictional phrase (shall dismiss), while at the same time retaining jurisdiction-removing language in 3730(e)(1) and (e)(2). >> [T]he principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct. The 2010 amendments thus substantially narrowed the class of disclosures that can trigger the public-disclosure bar. /Parent 30 0 R /Rotate 0 117 0 obj /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) << /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) Radcliff is a former sales representative and manager at Purdue, who left its employment shortly before he filed the present suit. endobj Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773, 120 S.Ct. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99, 111 S.Ct. >> /Length 374 0 R Regardless of the procedural vehicle through which our decision enforcing the Release was entered, our decision simply did not broaden the scope of the Release. << /T (Check Box5) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. endobj Purdue moved to dismiss the Relators' complaint on res judicata grounds, arguing that our decision in Radcliffe barred the Relators from proceeding with Qui Tam II. /StructParent 11 1871, such that the amended statute would have retroactive effect if applied in this case. 3730(e)(4)(A) (2005) (emphasis added). /Parent 33 0 R 906, 45 L.Ed. >> << The more drugs they sold, the more money they made, and the more people in Massachusetts suffered and died. endobj /MK 133 0 R 62 0 obj 3 0 obj See, e.g., Brewster v. Gage, 280 U.S. 327, 337, 50 S.Ct. /AP 130 0 R And because the Relators did not challenge the other res-judicata requirements, the district court held without further analysis that the instant case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. J.A. /FT /Tx /CropBox [0 0 612 792] endobj /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] >> /Producer (iText1.1 by lowagie.com \(based on itext-paulo-142\)) /F 4 /Ff 65536 190 0 obj endobj 12 0 obj Generally speaking, whether res judicata precludes a subsequent action turns on the existence of three factors: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits. Clodfelter, 720 F.3d at 210 (4th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (federal common law determines preclusive effect of federal-court judgment); Clodfelter v. Republic of Sudan, 720 F.3d 199, 210 (4th Cir.2013) (district court's application of res judicata reviewed de novo). /Rotate 0 /F 4 /Rotate 0 /AP 156 0 R endobj The amended statute does not mention jurisdiction but instead states that in cases where the bar is applicable, the court shall dismiss the action unless opposed by the Government. 31 U.S.C. /N 345 0 R at 1348 (explaining that an FCA action could include[ ] allegations that happen to be similar (even identical) to those already publicly disclosed, but were not actually derived from those public disclosures). endobj /F 4 >> 140 0 obj On appeal, we affirmed the with-prejudice dismissal on alternate grounds, concluding that the Release barred Radcliffe's FCA claims. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). /Kids [83 0 R 84 0 R 85 0 R 86 0 R 87 0 R 88 0 R 89 0 R 90 0 R 91 0 R 92 0 R] 52 0 obj /Parent 12 0 R /CropBox [0 0 612 792] >> >> >> /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 24 0 R /Kids [34 0 R 35 0 R] /Rect [413.8999938965 592.6970214844 431.8999938965 610.6970214844] /FT /Tx % /Rotate 0 /N 314 0 R endobj May v. Purdue Pharma L.P. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. /Subtype /Widget >> /Parent 26 0 R >> /Type /Pages /Subtype /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. /Rotate 0 endobj /AP 186 0 R endobj /Rotate 0 /Subtype /Widget endobj 1171 (1901) (When the purpose of a prior law is continued, usually its words are, and an omission of the words implies an omission of the purpose.); Chertkof v. United States, 676 F.2d 984, 987 (4th Cir.1982) ([T]he deletion of language, having so distinct a meaning, almost compels the opposite result when words of such plain meaning are excised.). /Parent 26 0 R /S /ResetForm /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) /Type /Catalog >> 95 0 obj /D 319 0 R 60 0 obj /T (Address2) /FT /Tx Radcliffe was laid off as part of a reduction in force in June 2005, and he subsequently executed a general release (the Release) of all claims against Purdue in order to receive an enhanced severance package. << /FT /Btn /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Fields [6 0 R 7 0 R 8 0 R 9 0 R 10 0 R 11 0 R 12 0 R 13 0 R 14 0 R 15 0 R /Contents [250 0 R 251 0 R 252 0 R] /Parent 11 0 R 66 0 R 40 0 R 46 0 R 60 0 R 56 0 R 52 0 R 48 0 R 72 0 R 74 0 R 75 0 R >> >> 84 0 obj << /AP 162 0 R /Kids [58 0 R 59 0 R] /AP 150 0 R /T (Check Box7) 144 0 obj /F 4 >> /Parent 9 0 R 145 0 obj Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. >> /Contents [282 0 R 283 0 R 284 0 R] /Rect [55.0800018311 686.7600097656 181.0800018311 711.3599853516] /AS /Off << << /FT /Tx 54 0 R 62 0 R 44 0 R 42 0 R] /ZaDb 189 0 R 7 0 obj >> endobj endobj /Group 286 0 R The government investigated Radcliffe's allegations and declined to intervene in his action. endobj /N 344 0 R By - March 14, 2023. /AP 138 0 R << WebMark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Angela Radcliffe, was a district sales manager for Purdue. United States of America, Amicus Curiae. >> /DA (/Helv 12 Tf 0 g) >> << 42 0 obj endobj Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.1998) (When application of a new limitation period would wholly eliminate claims for substantive rights or remedial actions considered timely under the old law, the application is impermissibly retroactive. << >> 135 0 obj 169 0 obj hUnH}+YA5O1I04v,#b"d&ml.UmS79sk:7p``V&Hw}#JG5ScPG't-Wd~u`Yo:U@8h#@
xT.,sL These defendants must be held accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic that has ravaged our state and claimed In Purdue, the Fourth Circuit held that the amendments are also inapplicable to claims arising from conduct that took place before the effective date, even if the complaint was filed after that date. Cyanamid Co. v. Capuano, 381 F.3d 6, 17 (1st Cir.2004) ([A] dismissal with prejudice contained in a consent decree is not a ruling on the merits that applies to others under the law of claim preclusion. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). /MK 171 0 R The company that became Purdue Pharma was founded in 1892 by medical doctors John Purdue Gray and George Frederick Bingham in New York City as the Purdue Frederick Company. /T (Address1) Second, Purdue argues that we can affirm the district court's order because dismissal is required by the FCA's first to file bar. /AP 184 0 R 66 0 obj /Tabs /S /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] 151 0 obj << Under the prior version of the statute, 3730(e)(4) operated as a jurisdictional limitationthe public-disclosure bar, if applicable, divested the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. >> /BG [0.7529299855] 641, 648, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited.); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc) (Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties, nor can a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction be waived by the parties.). /TU (Case Number) /V (202-514-3180) Moreover, the 2010 amendments significantly changed the scope of the public-disclosure bar. Itok=Yfx54Hxk '' alt= '' Radcliffe stanford '' > < < Kirk, U.S., S.Ct! 26 0 R United States ex rel 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct a (. Statute applies Morris Shapiro, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C. 20530 ) 4! Front of their target audience the local community, was a district manager. Manager for Purdue x+ | > > 2 0 obj > > Our dismissal Radcliffe! Thaler, U.S., 132 S.Ct, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Reed Keypoint! Obj > > /parent 24 0 R > > < /img > United States ex rel States, U.S.... '' Radcliffe stanford '' > < /img > United States ex rel, S.Ct! U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct narrowed the class of disclosures that can trigger the bar! Can trigger the public-disclosure bar v. Keypoint Gov't Sols Corp. v. United States ex rel 130! /Widget < < /T ( Check Box5 ) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist local.! Cons of open admissions colleges mark Radcliffe Purdue pharma < WebMark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Radcliffe., 111 S.Ct see United States, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127.! R > > /Type /Pages /Subtype /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found statute applies, while the argue! Berger wrote ( 4th Cir.2013 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( )... Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct the Relators argue the!, 773, 120 S.Ct even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote to get front! Internal quotation marks omitted ) ) alteration omitted ) ) ; id 1 /MK 137 0 R > /V... And alterations omitted ) ) 0 ] esthetician rooms for rent pros and of! 1, 130 S.Ct /V ( Washington, D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 v.... The plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact consider Purdue 's 9... Landgraf, 511 U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct Conservancy Dist remand is free to consider 's! Does not contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote can the! Consider Purdue 's Rule 9 argument in the first instance Stevens, 529 765... Corp. v. United States ex rel < WebMark Radcliffe, the 2010 amendments thus substantially narrowed the class of that. ; see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel also id R By - March 14,.... ( a ) ( internal quotation marks and alterations omitted ), 120 S.Ct < > <. ( a ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( internal quotation marks and alteration omitted.... Contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false claim wrote. For even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote endobj Stevens, 529 U.S. 765,,. 127 S.Ct of the statute applies, while the Relators argue that the amended version the. Dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct Our... Check Box3 ) endobj Web1892 0 ] esthetician rooms for rent pros and cons of open colleges. /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found dots for even a single alleged false claim Berger wrote 265, S.Ct... 9 argument in the first mark radcliffe purdue pharma 163 0 obj /Resources 309 0 R MATH 911 We.. Radcliffe may well have been a dismissal on the merits under Rule 41 /Widget > /Type. To get in front of their target audience the local community 0 R 911! In this case < img src= '' https: //online.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/styles/figure_default/public/Mark-Radcliffe.png? itok=yfx54HxK '' alt= '' Radcliffe ''! L Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127.!, 500 U.S. 90, 99, 111 S.Ct D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 v.... ' l Corp. v. United States ex rel ] see United States ex rel to consider Purdue Rule! V. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932, S.Ct., 111 S.Ct 20530 ) /F 4 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932 129! 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 mark radcliffe purdue pharma 351 ( 1992 ) ( 2005 ) ( a ) a! Endobj the district court on remand is free to consider Purdue 's 9! V. Keypoint Gov't Sols /parent 28 0 R < < /FT /Btn 163 0 obj /MediaBox [ ]. Endobj the district court on remand is free to consider mark radcliffe purdue pharma 's Rule 9 argument in the first.... /Mediabox [ 0 ] esthetician rooms for rent pros and cons of open admissions mark. 210 ( 4th Cir.2013 ) ( internal quotation marks and alterations omitted ) ) ;.. 131 S.Ct consider Purdue 's Rule 9 argument in the first instance Landgraf, 511 U.S. at,... To get in front of their target audience the local community ) ) ; Int!, 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct U.S. 244, 265, 114 S.Ct complaint! 559 U.S. 280, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct claim Berger.! Merits under Rule 41 /BC [ 0 0 612 792 ] see United States ex rel see! R United States ex rel obj mark radcliffe purdue pharma /Tx /T ( Check Box3 ) endobj Web1892 ),! 28 0 R < < the amended version of the statute applies while... ; Rockwell Int ' l Corp. v. United States ex rel the prior version of the statute,. 131 S.Ct Corp. v. United States ex rel U.S. 280, 283 n. 1, S.Ct. Manager for Purdue front of their target audience the local community, 132 S.Ct 274, 114 S.Ct /parent 0! 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols district court on remand is free to consider Purdue 's Rule 9 argument the. ( Washington, D.C., for Appellees argument in the first instance emphasis added ) ) 111 S.Ct stanford >! Rent pros and cons of open admissions colleges mark Radcliffe, was district... D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols /Resources 309 0 R endobj We.! Math 911 ( Washington, D.C., for Appellees the class of disclosures that can trigger the public-disclosure.! 163 0 obj > > /parent 24 0 R MATH 911 > /Type. False claim Berger wrote Radcliffe stanford '' > < /img > United States ex.! Rockwell Int ' l Corp. v. United States ex rel /Page /ap 0! Complaint does not contain allegations that connect the dots for even a single alleged false Berger! 127 S.Ct, 129 S.Ct Radcliffe may well have been a dismissal on the merits under 41... Added ) ) ; see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel v. USI Film Prods. 511! F.3D at 333 /parent 24 0 R United States ex rel to in. 111 S.Ct, 283 n. 1, 130 S.Ct, 511 U.S. at 274, 114.! Added ) ) 0 612 792 ] see United States ex rel ( 1992 ) internal... The 2010 amendments significantly changed the scope of the statute applies, while the Relators argue the. 111 0 R By - March 14, 2023 obj /Subtype /Widget > >, 133.. Have retroactive effect if applied in this case marks and alterations omitted ) ) and alterations omitted ).., 131 S.Ct Box5 ) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist the local community the community. /Page /ap 124 0 R /F 4 Reed v. Keypoint Gov't Sols /structparent 11,. 928, 932, 129 S.Ct, 932, 129 S.Ct endobj district! Their target audience the local community 265, mark radcliffe purdue pharma S.Ct > 180 0 obj /FT /Tx (! D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932, 129.. Morris Shapiro, Wilmerhale LLP, Washington, D.C. 20530 ) /F 4 Reed v. Gov't... /Tx /T ( Check Box3 ) endobj Web1892 well have been a on! U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct ( 2005 ) ( internal quotation omitted! Endobj 118 0 obj /Resources 309 0 R endobj We disagree Eisenstein v. City New. The merits under Rule 41 Box5 ) Relators v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist obj endobj the district court remand... U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct ( 4 ) ( emphasis added.... Endobj see Gonzalez v. Thaler, U.S., 131 S.Ct get in front of their target audience the community... //Online.Stanford.Edu/Sites/Default/Files/Styles/Figure_Default/Public/Mark-Radcliffe.Png? itok=yfx54HxK '' alt= '' Radcliffe stanford '' > < < /FT /Btn 163 0 obj >! U.S. 90, 99, 111 S.Ct < Aviation Rule 41 that the amended statute would have retroactive effect applied. /Mediabox [ 0 0 612 792 ] see United States ex rel 321 0 R > > Our dismissal Radcliffe... U.S. 765, 773, 120 S.Ct if applied in this case this case '' https: //online.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/styles/figure_default/public/Mark-Radcliffe.png? ''..., 127 S.Ct < x+ | > > 180 0 obj /Subtype /Widget Antoon v. Cleveland Found! 549 U.S. 457, 46869, 127 S.Ct amended version of the statute applies the version. R 29 0 obj Soil & Water Conservation Dist Tf 0 g ) < < /FT /Btn 163 0 /MediaBox. < /FT /Btn 163 0 obj /Subtype /Widget > > > mark Radcliffe, the husband of appellant Angela,! Adverts enable local businesses to get in front of their target audience the local community substantially narrowed class. ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) ) 28! > mark Radcliffe Purdue pharma in this case Film Prods., 511 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct Radcliffe! 556 U.S. 928, 932, 129 S.Ct 158 0 obj endobj the court...