Opinion ID: 4561954
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The first-to-file bar’s plain meaning

Text: We start with the word’s plain meaning. “Intervene” comes from the Latin venire, “to come,” plus the prefix inter-, “between.” Intervene, Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989). To “intervene” is “[t]o come between in action; to interfere, interpose.” Id. (def. 3a). An entity that intervenes does not become one of two sides; it “come[s] between” existing sides. Intervene, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1966). Often, intervention is not done at the behest or even with the acquiescence of the existing parties. See, e.g., id. (def. 1) (“to enter or appear as an irrelevant or extraneous feature or circumstance”); id. (def. 3) (“to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification”). In short, a third party intervenes when he injects himself between two existing sides, not when he is drawn in or becomes one side or another. The legal sense of intervention reflects the word’s etymology and plain English meaning. “Intervention” is “[t]he entry into a lawsuit by a third party who, despite not being named a party to the action, has a personal stake in the outcome.” Intervention, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (def. 1). So in law, a party who “intervene[s]” invokes “[t]he legal procedure by which such a third party is allowed to become a party to the litigation.” See id. (def. 2). The choice to intervene is made not by the existing parties, but by the intervenor. An “intervenor” is “[o]ne who voluntarily enters a pending lawsuit because of a personal stake in it.” Intervenor, in id. (emphasis added). In 11 the federal courts, this process is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Intervention is distinct from joinder, a way that existing parties can bring a third party into a lawsuit. See Joinder, Black’s Law Dictionary, supra. Required joinder ensures the presence of a necessary party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. Permissive joinder consolidates parties who might otherwise be involved in related but distinct actions. Id. R. 20. Either way, joinder is begun by the existing parties or the court. Intervention, by contrast, involves a nonparty’s motion to enter a suit to protect its interests, whether or not the existing parties want its company. Id. R. 24(a)–(b). And there are other ways for parties to enter a lawsuit. For instance, a defendant can implead a nonparty who might be liable to it for part of the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1). A party facing potentially duplicative liability can interplead all the parties to whom it might be liable. Id. R. 22(a). Or if a party dies, the court can substitute its successor or representative. Id. R. 25(a)(1). What distinguishes intervention from these other methods of adding new parties is that it requires action by an outside party who seeks a seat at the table. See 7C Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1901, at 257–60 (3d ed. 2007). Given that distinction, Congress would not have chosen the specific verb “intervene” to express the general concept of entry into a suit, no matter who initiated it or how. See Mississippi ex. rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161, 169–70 (2014) (presuming “Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation,” including “Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 20, governing party joinder” (internal quotation marks omitted)). By contrast, when Congress meant to refer to a broader class of parties entering suits, it covered “claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (emphasis added) (defining federal courts’ supplemental jurisdiction). Congress chose to draft that statute more broadly, but the first-to-file bar more narrowly. If Congress had wanted the first-to-file bar to reach more broadly, it would have said so. But it chose a “narrower” term (intervention), and we must “respect, not disregard,” that choice. Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2067, 2072 (2018). To be sure, other provisions of the False Claims Act limit who can be a proper plaintiff. For instance, when the allegations underlying the suit have already been disclosed publicly, no private party can sue unless it is “an original source of the information.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). But beyond barring intervention, the first-to-file bar itself says nothing about other ways in which third parties may enter an existing suit. A final note: The False Claims Act does provide for a special kind of intervention by the Government. When the Government chooses to intervene, it does not remain a third party between two existing parties. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)–(2), (c)(3) (describing Government intervention). Rather, even though the relator is still a party to the case, the Government takes over the relator’s “primary” role in pursuing it. Id. § 3730(c)(1). But this special kind of intervention occurs only when the Government intervenes, not when a private party does. It works differently not because of the first-to-file bar, 13 but because of the special Government-control provision in § 3730(c)(1). And the text of the first-to-file bar limits its scope to intervention by private parties, not the Government. Id. § 3730(b)(5). Thus, we see no reason to give “intervene” in that bar a unique meaning specific to the False Claims Act.