United States Ex Rel. Hampton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that later-filed complaint’s allegations against a specific subsidiary were already encompassed in allegations in first-filed complaint against the parent corporation
• concluding that a first-filed complaint “broad[ly] alleg[ing]” “fraud in providing home health care services through numerous subsidiaries” barred a second-filed complaint alleging such fraud at a subsidiary not mentioned in the first complaint
• stating that “the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the [qui tam] action” (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)
• barring a second-filed complaint alleging fraud that was “merely [a] variation[]” on the fraud already alleged by the first-filed complaint
• rejecting later-filing plaintiff's argument that her complaint was not barred because it alleged fraud by common defendant's subsidiary in Georgia, while first-filed complaint alleged fraud in other states but not Georgia
• first-to-file rule barred suit against subsidiary where prior suit had been brought against parent and alleged nationwide scheme

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).