Legal Opinion
United States Ex Rel. Dingle v. BioPort Corp.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided June 18, 2003No. 5:00-cv-00124PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
QUIST, District Judge.
Plaintiffs/would-be-relators’, Russell E. Dingle (“Dingle”) and Thomas L. Rempfer (“Rempfer”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), Amended Complaint is a qui tarn action filed pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. Before the Court is Defendants’, BioPort Corporation (“BioPort”) and Robert Myers (“Myers”) (collectively “Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice. Defendants assert, inter alia, that Plaintiffs are jurisdictionally barred from bringing suit under the FCA pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4), because…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- 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
- James G. Jackson v. City of Columbus, Gregory Lashutka, Thomas W. Rice, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- John A. Begala, Steven W. Borchers, Cynthia Edwards v. Pnc Bank, Ohio, National AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Armengau v. ClineCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- Bova v. U.S. Bank, N.A.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2006
- Williams v. LongDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2008
- Thomas v. HaslamDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2018
- Russell E. Dingle, Thomas L. Rempfer, United States of America, Ex Rel. v. Bioport Corporation, Robert MyersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Hamilton v. PaulsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.