Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20099 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., CHANDRA MITTAL, Ph.D, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants, TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY; BARBARA HAYES; ARUN JADHAV, Doctor; CURTIS W. MCDONALD; JOSEPH JONES, Defendants-Appellants. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-554 - December 20, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER,
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20099 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., CHANDRA MITTAL, Ph.D, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants, TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY; BARBARA HAYES; ARUN JADHAV, Doctor; CURTIS W. MCDONALD; JOSEPH JONES, Defendants-Appellants. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-554 - December 20, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20099
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.,
CHANDRA MITTAL, Ph.D,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants,
TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY; BARBARA HAYES;
ARUN JADHAV, Doctor; CURTIS W. MCDONALD;
JOSEPH JONES,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-554
--------------------
December 20, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This interlocutory appeal involves a qui tam action brought
under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) against Texas Southern
University and some of its employees and former employees.
Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to
dismiss, which averred that plaintiff/relator’s action is barred
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-20099
-2-
by the Eleventh Amendment and that defendants are not “persons”
within the meaning of the FCA. This appeal is controlled by this
court’s decision in United States, ex rel. Foulds v. Texas Tech.
Univ.,
171 F.3d 279, 294 (5th Cir. 1999) (“when the United States
has not actively intervened in the action, the Eleventh Amendment
bars qui tam plaintiffs from instituting suits against the
sovereign states in federal court”).
Accordingly, the district court’s order denying the state
defendants’ motion to dismiss is REVERSED, and the case is
REMANDED for the entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint as
to defendants.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DISMISSING
APPELLANTS