OUR PRECEDENT SETTING CASE LAW VICTORIES

WARREN | BENSON is the national leader in precedent setting False Claims Act qui tam cases, including cases before Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.

They also have greater trial and appellate experience, separating the firm from all other qui tam attorneys in the nation. Over the course of the past twenty years, the firm’s partner attorneys, Mr. Don Warren and Mr. Phil Benson, have been providing leading edge court representation and advocacy on issues shaping qui tam whistleblower rights.

The firm’s published cases and precedents include:

• United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743 (9th Cir.1993), cert. den. at 510 U.S. 1140, 114 S.Ct. 1125.
  
  First appellate case in the nation to uphold the constitutionality of the qui tam law.
  
  
• United States ex rel. Madden v. General Dynamics Corporation, 4 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 1993)
  
  First case in the nation to hold a defendant is barred from filing counter-claims against a qui tam plaintiff. Second appellate case in the nation to uphold constitutionality of the qui tam law.
  
  
• United States ex rel Barajas v. Northrop Corporation, 5 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1993), on remand 897 F. Supp. 1274 (C.D. Cal. 1995)
  
  First case in the nation to determine that a qui tam relator is entitled to a reward as to additional fraud discovered by the government during the course of investigating the qui tam relator’s case. Definition of “original source.”
  
  
• United States ex rel. Gibeault, et al. v. Texas Instruments Corp., 25 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1994)
  
  First case in the nation to limit the government’s right to object to a qui tam plaintiff’s settlement.
  
  
• United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1995)
  
  First case in the nation to hold that a violation of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) is a basis for a False Claims Act case. First case in the nation to hold that a defendant’s internal disclosures do not constitute a public disclosure for the purpose of the qui tam jurisdictional bar. First modern qui tam case to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
  
  
• United States ex. rel Hyatt v. Northrop Corporation, 91 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1996)
  
  First case in the nation to analyze the expanded Statute of Limitations under the False Claims Act.
  
  
• United States ex rel. Virani v. Jerry Lewis Truck Parts & Equipment, Inc., 89 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 1996)
  
  First appellate case in the nation to analyze qui tam plaintiff’s entitlement to statutory attorney fees.
  
  
• Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (Sup. Ct. 1997)
  
  First modern qui tam case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. First case to examine the retroactivity of the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act.
  
  
• Cedars Sinai Medical Center, et al, v. Shalala; and Qui Tam Relator, 125 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 1997)
  
  First case in the nation to hold that a challenge to the validity of Medicare Hospital Manual rules is not a defense to a False Claims Act case.
  
  
• United States ex rel. Zissler v. University of Minnesota, 154 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 1998)
  
  First case in the nation to hold that States and State entities are subject to suit under the federal False Claims Act.
  
  
• United States ex rel Biddle v. Stanford University, 161 F.3d 533 (9th Cir. 1998)
  
  Analysis of the False Claims Act’s “voluntary disclosure” requirement under the original source provision of section 3760(e)(4)(B).
  
  
• United States ex rel Barajas v. United States of America v. Northrop Corporation, 258 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
  
  First case in the nation to establish a qui tam relator’s right to a recovery under the False Claims Act’s “Alternate Remedy” provision.
  
  
• United States ex rel Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, 92 F.Supp 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal 2002)
  
  First case in the Ninth Circuit to hold the False Claims Act does not preempt state claim for wrongful discharge and retaliation.
  
  
• United States ex rel Kinney v. Stoltz, 327, F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2003)
  
  Analysis of the False Claims Act’s “direct and independent knowledge” requirement under the original source provision of section 3730(e)(4)(B).
  
  
• In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation, 221 FRD 318 (D. Conn. 2004)
  
  First case in the nation to hold a false claim made in violation of a Medicare Manual provision regarding coverage under the Medicare Act’s “reasonable and necessary” services section, is a violation of the False Claims Act.
  
  
• United States ex rel Barajas v. Northrop Corporation, CV 87-7288 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
  
  First case in the nation establishing entitlement to recover attorney fees from defendant, for pursuing a case in which the Government obtained an “alternate remedy.”
  
  
• United States ex rel Sialic v. Sequel, et al. 402 F.Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2005)
  
  First case in the Ninth Circuit to hold a federal grantee’s innocent submission of a false claim resulting from a contractor’s knowing false claim, satisfies the “presentment” requirement under the False Claims Act despite the purported contrary holding by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.