FOIA Information Can Form the Basis for False Claims Act Lawsuit
A recent decision from an Illinois
appellate court clarified when individuals can bring claims under the Illinois
False Claims Act. In Lyons Township ex rel. John H. Kielczynskiv. Village of Indian Head Park, a citizen submitted a number of FOIA
requests to a municipality regarding a contract for police services that the
municipality had entered into with an adjacent township.
After reviewing the information produced by
the municipality in response to his FOIA request, the citizen filed a lawsuit under the Illinois False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows private parties to bring lawsuits on
behalf of public bodies that have allegedly been defrauded. These private parties are then entitled to a
percentage of the settlement or judgment if the lawsuit is successful. The complaint alleged that the municipality had
defrauded the township by submitting bills for services that were never
performed and for retaining the revenue from tickets written within the unincorporated
areas of the township.
The municipality filed a motion seeking
to dismiss the lawsuit because the source of the information that formed the
basis of the citizen’s claims was the municipality’s FOIA responses. Under the False Claims Act, there are a
number of exceptions that prohibit a lawsuit from moving forward based on how
the citizen discovered the evidence of the alleged fraud. For example, if the citizen learns of the
alleged fraud from a news story or other public report, the citizen cannot
proceed with a suit under the False Claims Act.
Although the trial court had previously ruled in favor of the municipality, the appellate court reversed, finding that the
citizen’s claims were not barred simply because the FOIA responses came from
the municipality, and not the township.
The court held that only information provided by the public entity that
was allegedly defrauded (in this case, the township) could be considered a
public report that would bar an action under the False Claims Act. Since the
information that formed the basis of the citizen’s claims came from the
municipality’s FOIA responses, as opposed to the township, the municipality
could not stop the citizen’s claims from moving forward.
The court also found that the allegedly
fraudulent actions of the municipality were not immunized under the Tort
Immunity Act. The court noted that the citizen’s claims were based on the
contract between the municipality and the township, and that causes of action
under a contract theory are not protected by the Tort Immunity Act. The court
also held that the Tort Immunity Act only bars claims based on the oral
misrepresentations of a municipal employee, but does not bar claims where the
alleged fraud is still based on a written contract.
Post Authored by Kurt Asprooth, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment