Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided May 4, 1990No. Civ. A. No. 90-526PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WOLIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, the law firm of Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante (“the law firm”), has commenced this suit under the qui tam1 provisions of the False Claims Act, (“the FCA”) 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) et seq. The law firm seeks damages and civil penalties arising from alleged false statements and claims made by defendant, The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) in violation of the FCA. Defendant has moved for dismissal of the complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint for lack…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Florida Power & Light Co. v. LorionSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
  4. Gibbs v. BuckSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Palmore v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. US EX REL. STINSON v. Prudential Ins.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API