United States ex rel. Jerome P v. Alpharma, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-01601-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999804475]. [14-1388]

Appeal: 14-1388

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1388

UNITED STATES EX REL. JEROME PALMIERI,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE OF FLORIDA;
STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF HAWAII; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE
OF INDIANA; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF
MONTANA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; STATE OF
NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF TENNESSEE; STATE OF
TEXAS; STATE OF WISCONSIN; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALPHARMA, INCORPORATED; ALPHARMA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; KING
PHARMACEUTICALS, INCORPORATED; PFIZER, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-01601-ELH)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

April 26, 2016

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-1388

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Anna C. Dover, Rolando G. Marquez, MILBERG, LLP, New York, New
York; John B. Isbister, Jaime W. Luse, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Steven J. Menashi, KIRKLAND
& ELLIS, LLP, New York, New York; John C. O’Quinn, Devin A.
DeBacker, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1388

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Relator

Jerome

Palmieri

appeals

the

district

court’s

dismissal of his qui tam complaint against his former employer,
Alpharma,

Inc.,

and

associated

companies

(collectively,

“Defendants”), under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).

The district

court dismissed Palmieri’s complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
9(b), for failure to plead his claims of fraud with sufficient
particularity.

In so ruling, the district court did not address

Defendants’ arguments that Palmieri’s claims were precluded by the
FCA’s

first-to-file

bar,

31

U.S.C.

§ 3730(b)(5)

(2006), *

and

public-disclosure bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (2006), amended
by Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148,
tit. X, sec. 10104(j)(2), 124 Stat. 119, 901-02 (2010).
Under the pre-2010 version of § 3730 that governs Palmieri’s
action, see United States ex rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 737
F.3d 908, 915 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing “that the 2010 FCA
amendments may not be applied to cases arising before the effective
date of the amendments”), both the first-to-file and publicdisclosure defenses are jurisdictional in nature, see id. at 91418,

920

(§ 3730(e)(4)(A));

United

States

ex

rel.

Carter

v.

Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171, 181 (4th Cir. 2013) (§ 3730(b)(5)),

*

The current version of § 3730(b)(5) is identical to the
version in effect at the time Palmieri’s claims arose.
3

Appeal: 14-1388

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/26/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

rev’d in part on other grounds, Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc.
v. United States ex rel. Carter, 135 S. Ct. 1970 (2015).

We

conclude, therefore, that the district court was obligated to
consider

both

defenses

Palmieri’s complaint.

before

assessing

the

sufficiency

of

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s

order and remand this case for consideration in the first instance
of whether the FCA’s first-to-file bar or public-disclosure bar
deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4