Staying True to the False Claims Act: Why the Government Is an Unexplored Prime Vehicle to Dismiss Cases

Rigsby, a case involving a district court's discretion in dismissing a case for violation of the seal requirement.36 III.RIGSBY AND ITS EFFECTS ON DISMISSING A CASE FOR VIOLATION OF THE SEAL REQUIREMENT Rigsby arose from the devastation that followed Hurricane Katrina.37 Cori and Kerri Rigsby worked as claims adjusters for a company that provided services to state Farm Fire & Casualty Company ("State Farm").38 Under the insurance plan between the government and state Farm, state Farm insured damages caused by high winds while the government insured flood-related damages.39 The Rigsbys contended that, for some homes damaged by high winds, "State Farm fraudulently attributed damage . . . to flooding," thereby requiring the government to cover the damages under its National Flood Insurance Program.40 The Rigsbys sued State Farm in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.41 Although they filed the case under seal in accordance with the FCA, the Rigsbys and their attorney Dickie Scruggs, "a prominent Mississippi trial lawyer who would go on to serve six years in federal prison on bribery charges," and who now uses that experience to help high-school dropouts earn a GED,42 told the press and a member of Congress about the lawsuit before the court lifted the seal.43 State Farm moved to dismiss, "citing the sisters' 'repeated intentional violations of the FCA seal requirement. '"44 The district court denied the motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.45 State Farm filed a petition for writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to decide, among other things, "what standard should apply to determine whether to dismiss an FCA complaint after a violation of the seal requirement":46 It contended that the lower courts are divided on what standard should be used: . . . a bright-line rule that mandates dismissal; . . . whether "the violation incurably frustrates the congressional goals served by the seal requirement"; or, as the Fifth Circuit held, a balancing test that focuses on whether the violation actually harms the government.47 In January 2016, the Court issued a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.48 In a brief filed in April 2016, the government recommended denying review because the mandatory-dismissal rule was an "outlier" among other holdings that endorsed a more discretionary standard for dismissal.49 In May 2016, the Court granted certiorari to the Fifth Circuit, limited to wha