{"id":3055,"date":"2021-09-23T20:35:27","date_gmt":"2021-09-23T20:35:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=3055"},"modified":"2026-05-27T17:34:14","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T17:34:14","slug":"trending-towards-leniency-what-millenium-laboratories-in-re-plavix-marketing-teach-about-the-future-of-the-false-claims-acts-first-to-file-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2021\/09\/23\/trending-towards-leniency-what-millenium-laboratories-in-re-plavix-marketing-teach-about-the-future-of-the-false-claims-acts-first-to-file-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Trending Towards Leniency: What Millenium Laboratories &amp; In re Plavix Marketing Teach About the Future of the False Claims Act&#8217;s First-to-File Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In 2019, the First Circuit decided <em>United States ex rel. McGuire v. Millenium Laboratories., Inc.<\/em> (<em>Millenium Labs<\/em>), holding that the \u201cfirst-to-file\u201d rule of the False Claims Act (FCA) is a nonjurisdictional\u2014rather than a jurisdictional\u2014bar on later-filed actions.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3055_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3055_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3055_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3055_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3055_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">1<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">1. 923 F.3d 240, 248 (1st Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 851 (2020).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3055_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3055_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> And last year, the Third Circuit joined this position with its holding in <em>In re Plavix Marketing, Sales Practices<\/em> <em>and Products Liability Litigation (No. II)<\/em>.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3055_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3055_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3055_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3055_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3055_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">2<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">2. United States ex rel. JKJ P\u2019ship 2011 L.P. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. L.L.C. (In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices &amp; Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 974 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2020).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3055_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3055_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> While these decisions might have been against the weight of national authority, this Note argues that they were not against the growing consensus about the rule, the purpose of the FCA, and, most importantly, the First and Third Circuits\u2019 own FCA jurisprudence. Instead, this Note argues that the circuits\u2019 recent FCA decisions show that they and others have remembered the purpose of the FCA: to encourage private attorneys general to bring claims on behalf of the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Part I of this Note will discuss the history and development of the FCA, including its original purpose and modern use, why Congress added the first-to-file rule, and how the provision traditionally operated to bar later-filed claims. Part II will discuss the First and Third Circuits\u2019 case law and overall jurisprudence regarding the first-to-file rule. It will also illustrate the First and Third Circuits\u2019 FCA jurisprudence as a whole by looking to how the First and Third Circuits decided certain other issues arising under or related to the FCA. Part III will then discuss the factors that led to the circuits\u2019 decisions in Millenium Labs and In re Plavix Marketing. This includes a mix of both external factors\u2014like the rulings of other circuits\u2014and internal factors, like the First and Third Circuits\u2019 jurisprudence: their continued leniency in cases involving the FCA and their case law signaling the eventual recharacterization of the rule as nonjurisdictional. Part IV will briefly extract some lessons that these decisions can teach about what to look for in determining how a circuit might interpret the rule going forward, and based on these, predict that the Ninth Circuit will soon join these circuits in holding that the rule is nonjurisdictional. The Note will ultimately conclude that the decisions were simply a product of the First and Third Circuits\u2019 FCA case law and the fact that federal courts should be more lenient on plaintiffs bringing claims under the FCA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To read this Note, click here: <a href=\"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Sizemore-note-final11231.pdf\"><em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Trending Towards Leniency: What <\/span><\/em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Millenium Laboratories<\/span><em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\"> &amp; <\/span><\/em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">In re Plavix Marketing<\/span><em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\"> Teach About the Future of the False Claims Act&#8217;s First-to-File Rule<\/span><\/em>.<\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3055_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3055_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3055_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_3055_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3055_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3055_1_1');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3055_1_1\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">923 F.3d 240, 248 (1st Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 851 (2020).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3055_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3055_1_2');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3055_1_2\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">United States ex rel. JKJ P\u2019ship 2011 L.P. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. L.L.C. (In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices &amp; Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 974 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2020).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_3055_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3055_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3055_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_3055_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3055_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3055_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3055_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3055_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3055_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_3055_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_3055_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3055_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_3055_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3055_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Part I of this Note will discuss the history and development of the FCA, including its original purpose and modern use, why Congress added the first-to-file rule, and how the provision traditionally operated to bar later-filed claims. Part II will discuss the First and Third Circuits\u2019 case law and overall jurisprudence regarding the first-to-file rule. It will also illustrate the First and Third Circuits\u2019 FCA jurisprudence as a whole by looking to how the First and Third Circuits decided certain other issues arising under or related to the FCA. Part III will then discuss the factors that led to the circuits\u2019 decisions in Millenium Labs and In re Plavix Marketing. This includes a mix of both external factors\u2014like the rulings of other circuits\u2014and internal factors, like the First and Third Circuits\u2019 jurisprudence: their continued leniency in cases involving the FCA and their case law signaling the eventual recharacterization of the rule as nonjurisdictional. Part IV will briefly extract some lessons that these decisions can teach about what to look for in determining how a circuit might interpret the rule going forward, and based on these, predict that the Ninth Circuit will soon join these circuits in holding that the rule is nonjurisdictional. The Note will ultimately conclude that the decisions were simply a product of the First and Third Circuits\u2019 FCA case law and the fact that federal courts should be more lenient on plaintiffs bringing claims under the FCA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[88,46,720],"tags":[313,314,333,379,465],"class_list":["post-3055","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issue-5-print-volume-106","category-notes","category-print-volume-106","tag-false-claims-act","tag-fca","tag-first-to-file","tag-in-re-plavix-marketing","tag-millenium-labs"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3055","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3055"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3055\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5281,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3055\/revisions\/5281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3055"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3055"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3055"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}