U.S. ex rel. Conner v. Mahajan

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion in instant action seeking share of FDIC’s recovery obtained on behalf of failed bank in separate action, where plaintiff argued that FDIC’s recovery constituted “alternate remedy” to instant False Claims Act claim filed by plaintiff alleging that certain directors of said bank had defrauded govt. by approving loans through bank’s overvaluing of properties serving as collateral for said loans. Record showed that plaintiff had previously been denied leave to intervene in FDIC’s recovery action under circumstances where plaintiff argued that he was entitled to whistleblower award under False Claims Act. As such, doctrine of claim preclusion precluded plaintiff from proceeding in instant qui tam action, where: (1) plaintiff attempted to recover whistleblower awards in both FDIC and in instant qui tam actions; (2) in both actions, plaintiff filed motion alleging that FDIC had violated relator’s share provision of False Claims Act by not paying him portion of its settlement proceeds; (3) in both actions plaintiff sought ruling that FDIC’s case constituted alternative remedy under False Claims Act; and (4) plaintiff failed to appeal denial of his motion to intervene in FDIC case. As such, plaintiff could not repeat his demand in instant case for share of FDIC’s settlement proceeds.