United States of America, Ex Rel., Don H. Haycock v. Hughes Aircraft Company

Good Law
41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,030·96 Daily Journal DAR 12767·98 F.3d 1100·1996 WL 599274·35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1558
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 21, 199694-55620, 94-55826California817 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

Must an appeal in a qui tam case, in which the government has declined intervention, be filed within thirty days or sixty?

Mr. Haycock as relator brought a qui tam action in the name of the United States. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 ; 10 U.S.C. § 2306 . The United States filed a notice of its decision not to intervene in the action. The government may “notify the court that it declines to take over the action, in which case the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b)(4)(B). In that circumstance, the government may request that it be served with copies of pleadings and copies of deposition transcripts at its expense, and may be permitted to intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (c)(3). In the case at bar, the government requested copies of all pleadings and deposition transcripts, requested notice of any proposed dismissal or settlement, and expressly reserved the possibility of later intervention.

The relator lost his case on summary judgment. He filed a notice of appeal fifty-one days later. Appellee argues that we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because it was filed late.…

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.