Ehab Sefen v. Animas Corporation, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: MCKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 5. Judge: Chief Judge MCKEE Authoring.

Case: 14-3205

Document: 003111931847

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/13/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 14-3205
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL,
EHAB SEFEN
v.
ANIMAS CORPORATION; JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
Ehab Sefen,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-10-cv-02971)
District Judge: Honorable Richard Barclay Surrick
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 19, 2015
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: April 13, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3205

Document: 003111931847

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/13/2015

McKEE, Chief Judge.
Appellant Ehab Sefen (“Sefen”) appeals the District Court’s grant of Defendants
Animas Corporation and Johnson & Johnson’s (collectively “Animas”) Motion to
Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.1
I.
Prior to July 21, 2010, the False Claims Act (FCA) did not contain an explicit
limitations period for retaliation claims brought under Section 3730(h). Thus, the
Supreme Court held that “[t]he most closely analogous state limitations period applies.”
Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S. ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 411
(2005). Courts within this Circuit have looked to two different Pennsylvania borrowing
statutes. In United States ex rel. Repko v. Guthrie Clinic, P.C., a district court applied
Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower law, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1424, which has a 180-day
limitations period. 557 F. Supp. 2d 522, 528–29 (M.D. Pa. 2008). However, in Campion
v. Northeast Utilities, the same district court applied the two-year limitations period
based on Pennsylvania’s catch-all personal injury statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7).
598 F. Supp. 2d 638, 653 (M.D. Pa. 2009).

1

We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. We review a
district court’s dismissal of a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de
novo. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008).
We also exercise plenary review where a district court’s dismissal is on statute of
limitations grounds. Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 365 (3d Cir. 2000). “This plenary
review extends to the District Court’s choice and interpretation of applicable tolling
principles . . . .” Id.
2

Case: 14-3205

Document: 003111931847

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/13/2015

Since Sefen did not bring his retaliation claim until November 18, 2010, regardless
of which borrowing statute is applied, Sefen’s claim is untimely under Graham. Further,
even if the June 17, 2010 filing date of the initial complaint were used, Sefen’s claim
would still be untimely under both of the borrowing statutes. Recognizing this
deficiency, Sefen relies on the Dodd-Frank Act, passed on July 21, 2010, which he claims
should be retroactively applied.
The Dodd-Frank Act amended the FCA to add a three-year limitations period for
retaliation claims brought under Section 3730(h). There is no mention in the Act of
whether it is to apply retroactively.
A “presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in [Supreme Court]
jurisprudence.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994). “[T]he
‘principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that
existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal.’” Id. (quoting
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 855 (1990) (Scalia, J.,
concurring)). Accordingly, we apply “this time-honored presumption unless Congress
has clearly manifested its intent to the contrary.” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. ex rel.
Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 946 (1997).
In his well-reasoned opinion, Judge Surrick applied the Supreme Court’s two-part
test under Landgraf and thoroughly explained why he was granting Animas’s motion to
dismiss. After determining that “there is an absence of clear and unambiguous guidance
from Congress regarding retroactivity,” Judge Surrick moved to the second prong of the
Landgraf analysis. (J.A. 10–11.) In his analysis of the second prong, Judge Surrick
3

Case: 14-3205

Document: 003111931847

Page: 4

Date Filed: 04/13/2015

found that “imposing a longer statute of limitations indisputably increases [Animas’s]
liability for past conduct.” (J.A. 11–12.) In so finding, Judge Surrick relied on our
opinion in Lieberman v. Cambridge Partners, L.L.C., which provides that “the
resurrection of previously time-barred claims ‘increase[s] a party’s liability’ by
abolishing a complete defense to suit.” 432 F.3d 482, 492 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Enter.
Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig. v. Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., 391 F.3d 401,
409–10 (2d Cir. 2004)).
Judge Surrick found that, because “[b]oth state limitations periods had already
elapsed when [Sefen]’s claim was filed,” any retroactive application “would revive a
moribund cause of action, increasing a party’s liability for past conduct.” (J.A. 14.)
Thus, absent congressional intent for the statute to apply retroactively, Judge Surrick
found the court “compelled to conclude that [Sefen] cannot claim the benefit of the postamendment version of Section 3730(h).” (Id.) We agree. 2

Sefen’s principal argument on appeal is that the Dodd-Frank Act implemented a
“procedural, not substantive” change, and thus “it is appropriate to apply the three year
statute of limitations.” (Appellant’s Br. 10.) However, Animas correctly points out in its
brief that this argument was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Hughes Aircraft
Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Schumer. In Hughes, the respondent claimed that an amendment was
purely jurisdictional, and thus the Landgraf presumption against retroactivity was
inapplicable. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and explained:
Statutes merely addressing which court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a
particular cause of action can fairly be said merely to regulate the
secondary conduct of litigation and not the underlying primary conduct of
the parties. Such statutes affect only where a suit may be brought, not
whether it may be brought at all. The 1986 amendment, however, does not
merely allocate jurisdiction among forums. Rather, it creates jurisdiction
where none previously existed; it thus speaks not just to the power of a
particular court but to the substantive rights of the parties as well. Such a
2

4

Case: 14-3205

Document: 003111931847

Page: 5

Date Filed: 04/13/2015

Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the
aforementioned opinion of the District Court. As we find Sefen’s retaliation claim timebarred, we decline to consider whether Sefen stated a claim upon which relief could be
granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
IIII.
In light of the above, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of the motion to
dismiss in favor of Animas.

statute, even though phrased in “jurisdictional” terms, is as much subject to
our presumption against retroactivity as any other.
Hughes, 520 U.S. at 950–51 (internal citations omitted). The Dodd-Frank Act is
sufficiently analogous to the amendment in Hughes. Thus, we reject this argument as
well.
5