Pullman Co. v. Geller

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the plaintiff’s FCA retaliation claim could proceed “irrespective of the fate of her FCA qui tam claim”
• “the FCA now explicitly permits a form of relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(A) that unmistakably benefits only the Government and not relators”
• “The FCA makes clear that a relator ‘bring[s]’ a complaint when she files a qui tam complaint, not when that complaint is unsealed.”
• “There is no question that if [the p]laintiff has properly pleaded a claim for retaliation, she is permitted to do so irrespective of the fate of her FCA qui tam claim.”
• “Baylor consequently states a proposition that endures: the Second Circuit said unambiguously in that case that Rule 15(c)(1)(B) relation back is simply unavailable in suits brought pursuant to § 3730(b)’s procedural requirements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).