Court Opinion

ID: 9409489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 15:01:12.930344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:50.875381
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 20-10604    Document: 69-1     Date Filed: 07/18/2023    Page: 1 of 3

                                                              [PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 20-10604
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       MURRAY FARMER,
       JOHN P. MCAVOY,
       MARCO ZAVALA,
                                            Interested Parties-Appellants,
       versus
       THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS,
       (ROH),
       MOISES STARKMAN,
       former Minister of FHIS,
       CARLOS ROBERTO FLORES FACUSSE,
       former President of the Republic of Honduras,
       Individually and in his oﬃcial capacity,
USCA11 Case: 20-10604         Document: 69-1        Date Filed: 07/18/2023         Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       20-10604

       JUAN ORLANDO HERNANDEZ,
       current President of Honduras,
       individually and in his oﬃcial capacity,
       GABRIELA NUNEZ DE REYES, et al.,
       Secretary of State for Finance,

                                                            Defendants-Appellees.

                               ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00470-KD-N
                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON, JORDAN,
       ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA,
       BRASHER, ABUDU, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. *
       PER CURIAM:
              We previously vacated the panel’s opinion and ordered this
       appeal be reheard en banc. United States v. Republic of Honduras, 26
       F.4th 1252 (11th Cir. 2022). The en banc court directed the parties
       to address the following question: “Should this Court overrule its
       holding and reasoning in United States v. Everglades College, Inc., 855

       *Senior Circuit Judge Tjoflat elected to participate in this en banc proceeding,
       pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).
USCA11 Case: 20-10604       Document: 69-1       Date Filed: 07/18/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       20-10604                Opinion of the Court                            3

       F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2017), and in so doing, decide that the United
       States may not dismiss a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act
       under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) without first intervening in the ac-
       tion?”
               The en banc court convened for oral argument on June 21,
       2022. On that same day, the Supreme Court granted a petition for
       a writ of certiorari to decide the interpretation of 31 U.S.C.
       § 3730(c). United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 142
       S. Ct. 2834 (2022). We ordered that this appeal be held in abeyance
       pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
               On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in
       United States ex. rel Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 143 S.
       Ct. 1720 (2023). As relevant here, the Court held that § 3730(c)(2),
       which (among other things) permits the Government to dismiss or
       settle certain False Claims Act actions, “applies only if the Govern-
       ment has intervened, but the timing of the intervention makes no
       difference.” Polansky, 143 S. Ct. at 1730. Polansky therefore abro-
       gates our precedent, Everglades, in which we held that the Govern-
       ment may settle an action under § 3730(c)(2) without first interven-
       ing in the action. See Everglades, 855 F.3d at 1285–86.
            For that reason, we VACATE the district court’s order and
       REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with the Su-
       preme Court’s opinion in Polansky.