Legal Opinion
United States ex rel. Rubar v. Hayner Hoyt Corp.
District Court, N.D. New York
Decided January 25, 2018No. 5:14–cv–830 (GLS/CFH)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Gary L. Sharpe, U.S. District Judge *482I. Introduction
Plaintiff-relator John Rubar filed this qui tam action against defendants Hayner Hoyt Corporation, Jeremy Thurston, Gary Thurston, LeMoyne Interiors, Doyner, Inc., Ralph Bennett, and 229 Constructors, LLC pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA)1 . (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) The United States elected to intervene for the limited purpose of effectuating a settlement agreement between the parties, which resolved the FCA claims regarding defendants' fraudulent acquisition of construction contracts. (Dkt. No. 12.) Rubar maintains an FCA retaliation…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Fox v. ViceSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany & Albany County Board of ElectionsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- Millea v. Metro-North RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mastercraft Decorators, Inc. v. OrlandoDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2018
- Bailey v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community SupervisionDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2023
- Brooks v. RobertsDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2020
- Shah v. ListonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2025
- Smith v. PinesDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2019
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.