United States Ex Rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp.

Good Law
65 F. Supp. 2d 1097·1999 WL 710219·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19394
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 9, 1999CV 87-7288 AHM (KX)California2,903 words

Opinion

Opinion

Matz, J.

ORDER DENYING QUI TAM RELATOR’S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF SHARE OF RECOVERY

Through this motion, qui tam relator Leocadio Barajas seeks to recover $750,-000 as his alleged share of the “proceeds” allegedly recovered by the Air Force in an August 1991 Agreement (“Agreement”) it reached with Defendant Northrop to resolve a suspension/debarment proceeding initiated by the Air Force. Barajas argues that the money and value of the services Northrop agreed to provide the Air Force in that Agreement constitute “proceeds” of an “alternate remedy” under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (c)(5) that the Government achieved in resolution of one of Barajas’ previously-filed claims under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. (“FCA”).

The Government opposes Barajas’ motion, arguing that this Court should deny Barajas’ motion for several reasons. (1) It is proeedurally barred because he failed to move to reopen this case and because it is barred by a six year statute of limitations and laches. (2) The Agreement was not an “alternate remedy” under the FCA be cause the Government had never pursued that claim under the FCA. Instead, the Agreement simply constituted a resolution of the Air…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.