KBR filed a brief in opposition to certiorari and the Supreme Court also invited briefing by the Office of the Solicitor General. The government argued that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari because in a recent Supreme Court case, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436 (2016), issued after the First Circuit ruling in Gadbois, the Court stated in dicta that the appropriate remedy for a violation of the first-to-file rule was dismissal, which would require Carter to refile his complaint. The government also pointed out that even if private relators were barred by the first-to-file rule, the government could still file an FCA suit, so fraudulent conduct would not necessarily go unpunished.
at 206-07 (citations omitted).46Id. The 4th Circuit also noted that its plain-language interpretation was supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436 (2016). In Rigsby, the Supreme Court considered whether a violation of the FCA provision mandating that relators file their complaints under seal could be sanctioned only with dismissal.
CV-F-02-5665-REC-LJO (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2003).[7]See State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 137 S.Ct. 436, 440 (2016).
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. U.S ex rel. Rigsby, --- S. Ct. ---, No. 15-513, 2016 WL 7078622 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2016) In State Farm, the Supreme Court examined the appropriate sanctions for a violation of the FCA’s “seal” requirement, under which a relator’s complaint must be filed and remain until the district court orders the relator to serve the complaint on the defendant. State Farm had moved to dismiss the relators’ complaint after relators’ counsel had violated the seal in disclosures to journalists, a public relations firm, and others.