United States v. Aster, Civ. No. 25207.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 25207. |
| Citation | 176 F. Supp. 208 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America and Jack Aloff, Petitioners, v. Jay ASTER, Individually and Trading as Wingate Construction Company and National Surety Corporation and Crouse-Hinds Company. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Jack Aloff, Philadelphia, Pa., in pro. per.
Claude O. Lanciano, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners.
John V. Lovitt, Philadelphia, Pa., for Nat'l Surety Corp.
F. Hastings Griffin, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for Crouse-Hinds Co.
Joseph H. Lieberman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Jay Aster.
At issue here is a motion of the defendants to dismiss this qui tam action brought by Aloff, an informer, pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 231, 232, charging the defendants with having made false and fraudulent claims against the United States in connection with the supplying and installing of certain materials under public contracts. The United States did not initiate this action and has not joined in it. Documentary evidence supporting the present motion includes a detailed eight page statement of the factual basis of the present claim which admittedly was submitted by Aloff to the Department of Justice several months before the present suit was filed. Thus, the present record shows and this court now finds that the essential information upon which the present suit is predicated was supplied to and was in the possession of the United States before this suit was filed.
The question of law to be decided is whether in these circumstances the present suit is barred by the provision of Section 232 of Title 31 that "the court shall have no jurisdiction to proceed with any such suit * * * brought under this section whenever it shall be made to appear that such suit was based upon evidence * * * in the possession of the United States, * * * at the time such suit was brought * * *." On its face this language is comprehensive. It is broad enough to cover information obtained by the government from any source whatever. However, the movant argues that the sense and purpose of this statutory restriction dictate an implied exception of information supplied by the very informer who later brings the suit after the government has refused to do so.
This argument is predicated upon the assertion that the statutory language in question was enacted to correct the situation presented by the well known case of United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 1943, 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443, where an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Davis v. Long's Drugs, Inc.
...possession of the "United States, or any agency, officer or employee thereof." Defendants emphasize here the case of United States v. Aster, 176 F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Pa.1959) aff'd, 275 F.2d 281 (3d Cir. 1959), where suit was barred under section 232(C) by virtue of information previously discl......
-
Connecticut Action Now. Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co.
...curiam, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 391, 254 F.2d 90 (C.A.D.C. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 834, 79 S.Ct. 57, 3 L.Ed.2d 152; United States v. Aster, 176 F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Pa. 1959), aff'd, 275 F.2d 281 (3rd Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 894, 81 S.Ct. 223, 5 L.Ed.2d 188. All of the past rulings (o......
-
U.S. ex rel. Joseph v. Cannon
...aff'd, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 391, 254 F.2d 90, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 834, 79 S.Ct. 57, 3 L.Ed.2d 71 (1958); United States v. Aster, 176 F.Supp. 208, 210 (E.D.Pa.1959), aff'd, 275 F.2d 281 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 894, 81 S.Ct. 223, 5 L.Ed.2d 188 (1960).34 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,......
-
US ex rel. Hartigan v. Palumbo Bros., Inc., 90 C 7441.
...is "`broad enough to cover information obtained by the Government from any source whatsoever.'" Id. at 1105 (quoting United States v. Aster, 176 F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Pa.1959) aff'd 275 F.2d 281 (3rd Cir.1960)). In accord, United States v. Pittman, 151 F.2d 851 (5th Cir.1945) (holding jurisdicti......