Legal Opinion

United States Ex Rel. Vallejo v. Investronica, Inc.

District Court, W.D. New York

Decided March 31, 1998No. 6:96-cv-06575PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND ORDER

LARIMER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, Eduardo Enriehe Vallejo (“plaintiff”), commenced this action on behalf of the United States under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., against Investronica, S.A. (“S.A.”) and Investronica, Inc. (“INC.”). The United States declined to intervene, and plaintiff pursued this action on his own initiative, as permitted by the statute. Pending before the Court now are defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs motion for an “order of no criminal contact” and for preservation of documents, and plaintiffs…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Milliken v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. United States v. Community Health Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  2. United States Ex Rel. Wilkins v. North American Construction Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2001
  3. United States Ex Rel. Smith v. Yale UniversityDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2006
  4. United States ex rel. Phipps v. Comprehensive Community Development Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
  5. Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2016

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

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

Powered by the Exa API