Filed: May 22, 2015
Latest Update: May 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOY FLOWERS CONTI , Chief District Judge . AND NOW , this 22nd day of May, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED , defendants' alternative motion to strike allegations in the amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED , and the objections to the report and recommendation (ECF No. 28) are OVERRULED . It is further ORDERED tha
Summary: ORDER JOY FLOWERS CONTI , Chief District Judge . AND NOW , this 22nd day of May, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED , defendants' alternative motion to strike allegations in the amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED , and the objections to the report and recommendation (ECF No. 28) are OVERRULED . It is further ORDERED that..
More
ORDER
JOY FLOWERS CONTI, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED, defendants' alternative motion to strike allegations in the amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED, and the objections to the report and recommendation (ECF No. 28) are OVERRULED.
It is further ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 27) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court.
It is further ORDERED that defendants' alternative motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is GRANTED, as the court concludes that an immediate appeal of this Order would materially advance the end of this litigation because a controlling question of law about which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion is involved. Therefore, it is ORDERED that permission to appeal this order is granted with respect to the following question of law:
Whether the antiretaliation provision of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1), applies to an employer that fired an employee after discovering that the employee was a whistleblower and relator in an ongoing qui tam action under the FCA against his former, unrelated employer.
It is further ORDERED that any party wishing to immediately appeal this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shall file a petition for permission to appeal within 10 days of this order, as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
