Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves Khurana's pursuit of a relator's share from a $500 million settlement following a deferred prosecution agreement with Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) related to fraud in the CityTime project. Khurana's claims were made under the New York State False Claims Act (NYS FCA) and the New York City False Claims Act (NYC FCA), alleging a fraudulent scheme in the project's execution and subsequent retaliatory discharge. The State and City declined to intervene, and Khurana's qui tam claims were dismissed in 2016 due to the public disclosure bar and failure to meet pleading standards, leaving only his retaliatory discharge claims intact. The court denied Khurana's motion for a relator's share, emphasizing that a valid qui tam claim is essential for recovery rights under the NYS FCA and NYC FCA. The court expressed skepticism about whether the DPA and settlement qualified as alternate remedies, noting that even if they did, Khurana's lack of a valid qui tam action precluded recovery. The court affirmed that whistleblowing activities do not substitute for a valid complaint in seeking a relator's share, thereby denying Khurana's motion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Government Intervention in Qui Tam Lawsuitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The State and City declined to intervene in Khurana's action, impacting his ability to recover under the NYS FCA and NYC FCA.
Reasoning: In April 2013, the State opted not to intervene in the case, allowing the City to decide its course of action. The City also eventually declined to intervene in 2015.
Public Disclosure Bar in Qui Tam Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Khurana's qui tam claims were dismissed due to the public disclosure bar, which prevents claims based on information already publicly disclosed.
Reasoning: The court previously ruled that Khurana's claims were precluded by the public disclosure bar and thus defective.
Relator’s Rights Under Deferred Prosecution Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court expressed skepticism about whether a DPA qualifies as an alternate remedy under the NYS FCA or NYC FCA without a valid qui tam claim.
Reasoning: The Court expresses skepticism regarding whether the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and the SAIC Settlement qualify as alternate civil proceedings under the New York State False Claims Act (NYS FCA) or the New York City False Claims Act (NYC FCA).
Requirements for Recovery Under the False Claims Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that without a valid qui tam claim, a relator cannot recover proceeds from an alternate civil remedy under the NYS FCA or NYC FCA.
Reasoning: Relators cannot claim a share from alternate remedies without a valid qui tam claim.
Role of Whistleblowing in Seeking Relator's Sharesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Khurana's whistleblowing activities were deemed irrelevant to his motion for a relator’s share, as they did not constitute a valid complaint.
Reasoning: Although Khurana references his whistleblowing activities prior to filing, this focus is irrelevant to his motion for a relator’s share, as there must be a valid complaint for recovery.