United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York

Background

Irwin Eisenstein and four New York City employees sued the City under the False Claims Act, arguing a city fee reduced federal tax revenue. The United States reviewed the complaint, declined to intervene, but asked to receive pleadings and deposition transcripts. The district court later dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for the City. Eisenstein filed a notice of appeal 54 days after judgment, between the 30-day limit that normally applies and the 60-day limit that applies when the federal government is a party under appellate rules.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the federal government counts as a party for the purpose of appeal timing when it has declined to intervene. The Court explained that intervention is the statutory method for a nonparty to become a party and that Congress expressly gave the Government discretion to intervene. Treating the Government as a party despite its decision not to intervene would make the intervention rules meaningless. The Court therefore concluded that the Government was not a party for appellate filing rules, applied the 30-day deadline, and held that the appeal was untimely. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion to resolve a split among courts of appeals.

Real world impact

The ruling affects private whistleblowers, defendants, and courts handling False Claims Act suits: unless the Government formally intervenes, parties must file notices of appeal within 30 days or risk dismissal. The Court acknowledged that this rule could produce harsh results for people who reasonably believed a 60-day limit applied, but emphasized that the filing window is jurisdictional and must be enforced. This decision is procedural; it determines the time for appeals rather than the merits of fraud claims, but it will change how quickly relators must act after judgment.