## Facts

- Allegations concerned systematic Medicare fraud through thousands of medically unnecessary invasive cardiac procedures performed at Redding Medical Center (RMC) to obtain reimbursements.
- On October 30, 2002, the FBI executed a search warrant for medical records tied to RMC and certain physicians; the supporting affidavit was released publicly the same day.
- On November 5, 2002, former patient John Corapi and Joseph Zerga filed a sealed qui tam action under the federal and California False Claims Acts against RMC, Tenet-related entities, and physicians, asserting direct and independent knowledge.
- On November 8, 2002, Dr. Patrick Campbell filed a separate sealed qui tam action in the same district against substantially the same defendants based on similar allegations.
- The United States intervened and moved to dismiss Campbell’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing it was a “related action” barred by the FCA first-to-file rule because Corapi/Zerga had filed first.
- The district court assumed arguendo that Corapi/Zerga might not qualify as “original sources” under the FCA public-disclosure bar, but still dismissed Campbell’s case under the first-to-file rule.
- The government later settled the Corapi/Zerga case; Campbell attempted to object and participate, but the district court rejected his objections for lack of standing because his case had been dismissed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FCA first-to-file bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), blocks a later related qui tam action when the earlier-filed action is jurisdictionally barred by the public-disclosure/original-source rule, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A).
2. Whether a relator whose qui tam action was dismissed under the first-to-file bar has standing to object to a government settlement in the earlier action.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Campbell’s qui tam action and remanded.
- The court held that a first-filed qui tam action that is not jurisdictionally cognizable because the relator is not an “original source” does not trigger the FCA first-to-file bar.
- Because the dismissal premise was incorrect, the court directed reconsideration on remand of matters flowing from that dismissal, including Campbell’s ability to be heard regarding the settlement.

## Legal Principles

- The FCA public-disclosure/original-source rule is jurisdictional: if an action is based on publicly disclosed allegations and the relator is not an original source, courts lack jurisdiction over that action.
- The FCA first-to-file bar applies only when there is a pending, jurisdictionally cognizable qui tam action; a jurisdictionally barred earlier complaint cannot serve as the “first-filed” action for § 3730(b)(5).
- Statutory provisions should be read to avoid allowing a non-cognizable action to preclude a later cognizable action, consistent with the FCA’s purpose of encouraging genuine whistleblowers and discouraging opportunistic suits.
- Prior circuit precedent applying first-to-file principles did not control where it did not address the interaction between first-to-file and the public-disclosure/original-source jurisdictional bar.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that an earlier qui tam complaint that lacks jurisdiction under the FCA public-disclosure/original-source rule cannot bar a later related action under the first-to-file provision, and it reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that jurisdictional analysis.


Campbell v. Redding Med. Ctr., 421 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2005)