United States Ex Rel., Christopher Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Teledyne Industries, Inc., Dba Teledyne Wah Chang Albany and Teledyne, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge.
The district court dismissed a qui tam action against the defendant-appellee Tele-dyne Wah Chang Albany, Teledyne Industries, Inc., d.b.a. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, and Teledyne, Inc. (collectively, “Teledyne”). The court did so because the plaintiff, Christopher Hall (“Hall”), had already sued Teledyne in state court and had settled, executing a release that also encompassed any future qui tam claim. After the district court’s ruling, this court decided United States ex rel. Green v. Northrop Corp., 59 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.1995), where we held that a similar release in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. MezzanattoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Town of Newton v. RumerySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Springfield Terminal Railway Company David A. Fink v. Francis X. QuinnCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- Chen-Cheng Wang, AKA C.C. Wang, an Individual and Ex Rel. The United States of America v. Fmc CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- United States of America, Ex Rel., and Michael E. Green v. Northrop Corporation Norm BussardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
3Cited by29 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
- United States Ex Rel. Longhi v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
- United States Ex Rel. Ritchie v. Lockheed Martin Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.