{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-87-2026-09-28", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-87-2026-09-28)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:5aa9a2", "proof": "sha256:993d2741dc2852b5746e0d174a9fadeeb32addcbe49c338b08476d86e31dd6dc", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca9-25-87-2026-09-28", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "MARY JANE BRENCE; DAVID", "paragraphs": [ "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10" ] }, { "title": "PARSONS GOVERNMENT", "paragraphs": [ "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-87", "paragraphs": [ "para_17" ] }, { "title": "2:21-cv-05177-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "KK-E", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_22" ] }, { "title": "Kenly Kiya Kato, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Argued and Submitted July 6, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Pasadena, California", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2 USA V. BURTON", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed September 28, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_29" ] }, { "title": "Opinion by Judge Tung", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SUMMARY*", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "False Claims Act / Appellate Jurisdiction", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a defendant’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43" ] }, { "title": "The panel held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction under", "paragraphs": [ "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50" ] }, { "title": "USA V. BURTON 3", "paragraphs": [ "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55" ] }, { "title": "COUNSEL", "paragraphs": [ "para_57" ] }, { "title": "Redondo Beach, California; Frank Kortum, Assistant United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, United", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "States Department of Justice, Los Angeles, California; Brian", "paragraphs": [ "para_61" ] }, { "title": "United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for", "paragraphs": [ "para_63", "para_64" ] }, { "title": "Coleman Frost LLP, El Segundo, California; Alexander", "paragraphs": [ "para_66", "para_67" ] }, { "title": "4 USA V. BURTON", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "OPINION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "TUNG, Circuit Judge:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Congress passed the False Claims Act to ferret out fraud", "paragraphs": [ "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79" ] }, { "title": "Defendant here invoked this provision at the pleading stage", "paragraphs": [ "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85" ] }, { "title": "Defendant sought an appeal. We hold that we lack", "paragraphs": [ "para_87" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court has instructed us to be parsimonious in our", "paragraphs": [ "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs are employees of the Space and Missile", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Systems Center (“SMC”) of the United States Air Force1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1 SMC originally operated under the U.S. Air Force. In April 2021, its", "paragraphs": [ "para_97" ] }, { "title": "Command under the aegis of the U.S. Space Force. See U.S. Gov’t", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "USA V. BURTON 5", "paragraphs": [ "para_100" ] }, { "title": "Deputy Chief Information Officer, under the qui tam", "paragraphs": [ "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119" ] }, { "title": "Defendant that the provision barred Plaintiffs’ suit, because", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(in its view) Defendant’s employment with SMC constituted", "paragraphs": [ "para_122", "para_123" ] }, { "title": "But upon further consideration, the district court altered", "paragraphs": [ "para_125", "para_126" ] }, { "title": "Accountability Off., DOD Faces Challenges and Opportunities with", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Acquiring Space Systems in a Changing Environment, GAO-21-520T at", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3 (2021), https://perma.cc/3RF9-DZEE. The facts at issue here occurred", "paragraphs": [ "para_130", "para_131" ] }, { "title": "6 USA V. BURTON", "paragraphs": [ "para_133" ] }, { "title": "05177-KK-E, Dkt. 98, the district court sua sponte", "paragraphs": [ "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138" ] }, { "title": "Defendant now appeals the district court’s order.2 We", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144" ] }, { "title": "Federal appellate courts exercise jurisdiction over “all", "paragraphs": [ "para_146" ] }, { "title": "U.S.C. § 1291. “A final decision ‘ends the litigation on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_148", "para_149" ] }, { "title": "F.4th 663, 671 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Hall v. Hall, 584", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "U.S. 59, 64 (2018)). “An order denying a motion to", "paragraphs": [ "para_152", "para_153" ] }, { "title": "Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Neither is an order", "paragraphs": [ "para_155", "para_156" ] }, { "title": "But the rule has its caveats. A few decades ago, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_158" ] }, { "title": "2 Defendant has not moved for the district court to certify his", "paragraphs": [ "para_160", "para_161" ] }, { "title": "(United States v. Burton, No. 2:21-cv-05177-KK-E, Dkt. 143), but the", "paragraphs": [ "para_163" ] }, { "title": "USA V. BURTON 7", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "337 U.S. 541 (1949), set forth what has come to be known", "paragraphs": [ "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171" ] }, { "title": "The Court has distilled this doctrine into three prongs: to", "paragraphs": [ "para_173", "para_174" ] }, { "title": "(2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the", "paragraphs": [ "para_176", "para_177", "para_178" ] }, { "title": "The Court has further instructed that only a “small class”", "paragraphs": [ "para_180" ] }, { "title": "Menocal, 607 U.S. 438, 444 (2026) (“[The] so-called", "paragraphs": [ "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185" ] }, { "title": "Court to “prescribe rules . . . to provide for an appeal of an", "paragraphs": [ "para_187", "para_188" ] }, { "title": "Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 113–14 (2009); Garraway", "paragraphs": [ "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194" ] }, { "title": "Such congressional “designation of the rulemaking process", "paragraphs": [ "para_196" ] }, { "title": "8 USA V. BURTON", "paragraphs": [ "para_198", "para_199", "para_200" ] }, { "title": "Defendant’s appeal does not fall within the narrow class", "paragraphs": [ "para_202" ] }, { "title": "While the district court’s order might be viewed as", "paragraphs": [ "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208" ] }, { "title": "546 U.S. at 349. We “lack collateral order jurisdiction if", "paragraphs": [ "para_210", "para_211" ] }, { "title": "Defendant is correct that the case against him would", "paragraphs": [ "para_213" ] }, { "title": "But a denial of that alleged right, on the basis that he is not", "paragraphs": [ "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218" ] }, { "title": "1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2025) (quotation omitted). If the law", "paragraphs": [ "para_220", "para_221" ] }, { "title": "That is not the law. The Supreme Court has instructed", "paragraphs": [ "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229" ] }, { "title": "USA V. BURTON 9", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Litig., 317 F.3d 134, 151 (2d Cir. 2003). And a jurisdictional", "paragraphs": [ "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235" ] }, { "title": "Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 526–27 (1988)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(personal jurisdiction); United States v. Layton, 645 F.2d", "paragraphs": [ "para_238" ] }, { "title": "Section 3730(e)(1)’s phrasing suggests, too, that the bar", "paragraphs": [ "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248" ] }, { "title": "431 U.S. 651, 660–61 (1977), and the Speech or Debate", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Clause (“and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they", "paragraphs": [ "para_251" ] }, { "title": "Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 501 n.1 (1979). Nor is section", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3730(e)(1) akin to other immunities for which immediate", "paragraphs": [ "para_254", "para_255", "para_256" ] }, { "title": "Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). These immunities are", "paragraphs": [ "para_258", "para_259" ] }, { "title": "3730(e)(1), which goes to a court’s power and instructs a", "paragraphs": [ "para_261" ] }, { "title": "One might argue that section 3730(e)(1) does confer an", "paragraphs": [ "para_263" ] }, { "title": "10 USA V. BURTON", "paragraphs": [ "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273" ] }, { "title": "Nor would denying a defense under section 3730(e)(1)", "paragraphs": [ "para_275", "para_276" ] }, { "title": "U.S. at 445 n.1; id. at 459 (Alito, J., concurring in the", "paragraphs": [ "para_278" ] }, { "title": "495, 502 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“The importance of", "paragraphs": [ "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285" ] }, { "title": "Courts have denied an immediate appeal in the following", "paragraphs": [ "para_287", "para_288" ] }, { "title": "113); when a defendant claims to be subject to vindictive or", "paragraphs": [ "para_290" ] }, { "title": "Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 264–65 (1982) (per curiam)); when", "paragraphs": [ "para_292", "para_293", "para_294" ] }, { "title": "(Lauro Lines, 490 U.S. at 501); when an order denies the", "paragraphs": [ "para_296" ] }, { "title": "Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 884 (1994)); when a", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "USA V. BURTON 11", "paragraphs": [ "para_299" ] }, { "title": "(Layton, 645 F.2d at 683); and when a defense under the", "paragraphs": [ "para_301", "para_302" ] }, { "title": "The interests implicated in those instances were quite", "paragraphs": [ "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court’s case in Will is perhaps the most", "paragraphs": [ "para_311", "para_312" ] }, { "title": "Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for damaging the plaintiffs’", "paragraphs": [ "para_314", "para_315", "para_316" ] }, { "title": "Clause for the same underlying harm. Id. The government", "paragraphs": [ "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325" ] }, { "title": "Court held that the government defendants could not pursue", "paragraphs": [ "para_327" ] }, { "title": "355. “There is,” the Court said, “no such public interest at", "paragraphs": [ "para_329", "para_330" ] }, { "title": "353. “[S]imply abbreviating litigation troublesome to", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "12 USA V. BURTON", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Government employees,” the Court declared, was not", "paragraphs": [ "para_334" ] }, { "title": "That reasoning applies here. Section 3730(e)(1) bars", "paragraphs": [ "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341" ] }, { "title": "546 U.S. at 353. If anything, the “judgment bar” in Will", "paragraphs": [ "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350" ] }, { "title": "Court in Will concluded that the “judgment bar” was not", "paragraphs": [ "para_352" ] }, { "title": "353. If the issue was not important enough there, then surely", "paragraphs": [ "para_354" ] }, { "title": "Defendant nevertheless argues for section 3730(e)(1)’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_356", "para_357" ] }, { "title": "Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries", "paragraphs": [ "para_359", "para_360" ] }, { "title": "And it is true that this court has held that a district court’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_362", "para_363" ] }, { "title": "Sec’y of Air Force, 944 F.2d 1477, 1484 (9th Cir. 1991). But", "paragraphs": [ "para_365" ] }, { "title": "USA V. BURTON 13", "paragraphs": [ "para_367", "para_368", "para_369" ] }, { "title": "Suits under the False Claims Act do not seek redress of", "paragraphs": [ "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376" ] }, { "title": "(1976); Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 579", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "U.S. 176, 181–82 (2016); Act of Mar. 2, 1863, ch. 67 § 1, 12", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Stat. 696. Accordingly, to say that allowing false-claims", "paragraphs": [ "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384" ] }, { "title": "Cries here of “judicial intrusion” into military affairs are", "paragraphs": [ "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390" ] }, { "title": "Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419, 424 (2023). The point is", "paragraphs": [ "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398" ] }, { "title": "14 USA V. BURTON", "paragraphs": [ "para_400" ] }, { "title": "To convince us to hear a case on interlocutory appeal is", "paragraphs": [ "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "MARY JANE BRENCE; DAVID", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "MYUNG; LUCKY NGUYEN,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs - Appellees,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "JEREMY BURTON,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Defendant - Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "PARSONS GOVERNMENT", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "SERVICES, INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Defendant - Appellee,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "JOHN AUDIA, JUDY GONCE,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "No. 25-87", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "D.C. No.", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "2:21-cv-05177-", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "KK-E", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "for the Central District of California", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Kenly Kiya Kato, District Judge, Presiding", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Argued and Submitted July 6, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Pasadena, California", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "2 USA V. BURTON", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Filed September 28, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Gabriel P. Sanchez, and", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Eric C. Tung, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Opinion by Judge Tung", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "SUMMARY*", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "False Claims Act / Appellate Jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a defendant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order denying", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "at the pleading stage a defense in a qui tam action under the", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "False Claims Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Defendant Jeremy Burton invoked 31 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "§ 3730(e)(1), which provides that an action may not be", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "brought by a member of the armed forces “against a member", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "of the armed forces arising out of such person’s service in", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "the armed forces.” The district court denied the defense,", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "concluding that Burton was not a member of the armed", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "forces, and permitted the case to proceed.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "The panel held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction under", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "collateral order doctrine. While the district court’s order", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "might be viewed as conclusively resolving a disputed", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "question that was completely separate from the merits of the", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "case, the order was not effectively unreviewable on appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "USA V. BURTON 3", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "from a final judgment. Section 3730(e)(1) does not confer", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "an immunity but rather is a jurisdictional bar. The panel held", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "that it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from a non-final", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "order declining to apply that bar.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "COUNSEL", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Connor M. Karen (argued), Kirtland & Packard LLP,", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "Redondo Beach, California; Frank Kortum, Assistant United", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, United", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "States Department of Justice, Los Angeles, California; Brian", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Johnny Kim (argued) and Derrick F. Coleman (argued),", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "Coleman Frost LLP, El Segundo, California; Alexander", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "Cote and David Scheper, Winston Taylor LLP, Los Angeles,", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "California; for Defendants-Appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "4 USA V. BURTON", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "TUNG, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Congress passed the False Claims Act to ferret out fraud", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "against the federal government. Under the Act, a person can", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "stand in the shoes of the government to sue a purported", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "fraudster and, if successful, obtain a monetary award. But", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "there are exceptions, and one particular action is not allowed:", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "“No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought by", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "a former or present member of the armed forces . . . against", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "a member of the armed forces arising out of such person’s", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "service in the armed forces.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "Defendant here invoked this provision at the pleading stage", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "as a defense to a suit against him for cheating the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "government. The district court denied the defense,", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "concluding that Defendant was not “a member of the armed", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "forces” entitled to such a defense, and permitted the case to", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "proceed. Before the case could reach finality, however,", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "Defendant sought an appeal. We hold that we lack", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "jurisdiction to entertain such an interlocutory appeal. The", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "Supreme Court has instructed us to be parsimonious in our", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "exercise of appellate jurisdiction over non-final orders, and", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "this appeal does not fall within the small class of cases", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "justifying interlocutory treatment. We thus dismiss the", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "I.", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs are employees of the Space and Missile", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Systems Center (“SMC”) of the United States Air Force1", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "1 SMC originally operated under the U.S. Air Force. In April 2021, its", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "status changed and SMC was redesignated as the Space Systems", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "Command under the aegis of the U.S. Space Force. See U.S. Gov’t", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "USA V. BURTON 5", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "who are suing Defendant Jeremy Burton, the SMC’s former", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "Deputy Chief Information Officer, under the qui tam", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) for submitting", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "fraudulent payments claims to the United States", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "government. They specifically allege that Defendant—", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "along with other defendants not before us on this appeal—", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "coordinated with a defense contractor and took steps to", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "ensure that SMC contracts went to that contractor with the", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "intent to share profits in violation of the Federal Acquisition", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "Regulations.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "On May 2, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss,", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "arguing among other things that Plaintiffs’ claims were", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "barred by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(1). Under this provision,", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "“[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought by", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "a former or present member of the armed forces under", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "subsection (b) of this section [which generally permits", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "actions by private persons under the False Claims Act]", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "against a member of the armed forces arising out of such", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "person’s service in the armed forces.” 31 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "§ 3730(e)(1). The district court initially agreed with", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "Defendant that the provision barred Plaintiffs’ suit, because", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "(in its view) Defendant’s employment with SMC constituted", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "membership in the armed forces. It issued an order", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant.", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "But upon further consideration, the district court altered", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "its conclusion. In light of subsequent briefing on Plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "claims against other defendants involved in the alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Accountability Off., DOD Faces Challenges and Opportunities with", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Acquiring Space Systems in a Changing Environment, GAO-21-520T at", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "3 (2021), https://perma.cc/3RF9-DZEE. The facts at issue here occurred", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "prior to the redesignation. For ease of reference, we will therefore refer", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "to the parties as belonging to the Air Force.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "6 USA V. BURTON", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "scheme, see, e.g., United States v. Burton, No. 2:21-cv-", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "05177-KK-E, Dkt. 98, the district court sua sponte", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "reconsidered and vacated its previous order. This time, it", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "concluded that Defendant was a civilian employee, and thus", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "not a “member of the armed forces” under", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "section 3730(e)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "Defendant now appeals the district court’s order.2 We", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "possess jurisdiction to determine whether we have", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "jurisdiction. Thomas v. Nakatani, 309 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "Cir. 2002). As explained below, we do not.", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "II.", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "A.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "Federal appellate courts exercise jurisdiction over “all", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 1291. “A final decision ‘ends the litigation on the", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "judgment.’” California, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 186", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "F.4th 663, 671 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Hall v. Hall, 584", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "U.S. 59, 64 (2018)). “An order denying a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "dismiss—in whole or in part—does not meet this criterion”", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "and is “typically not immediately appealable under § 1291.”", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Neither is an order", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "vacating a prior order granting a motion to dismiss. The", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "final-judgment rule disfavors piecemeal litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "But the rule has its caveats. A few decades ago, the", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "Supreme Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Indust. Loan Corp.,", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "2 Defendant has not moved for the district court to certify his", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Another defendant not", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "before the panel sought to certify based on the collateral order doctrine", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "(United States v. Burton, No. 2:21-cv-05177-KK-E, Dkt. 143), but the", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "district court denied the request. Id. at Dkt. 161.", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "USA V. BURTON 7", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "337 U.S. 541 (1949), set forth what has come to be known", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "as the “collateral order doctrine.” Under this doctrine,", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "appellate courts may review interlocutory orders addressing", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "certain claims that are “too important to be denied review", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "and too independent of the cause itself to require that", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "adjudicated.” Id. at 546.", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "The Court has distilled this doctrine into three prongs: to", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "qualify for immediate review, the district court order must", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "“(1) conclusively determine the disputed question,", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "(2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "appeal from a final judgment.” Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "345, 349 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "The Court has further instructed that only a “small class”", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "of decisions meets this “high bar.” Geo Grp., Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "Menocal, 607 U.S. 438, 444 (2026) (“[The] so-called", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "collateral-order doctrine, we have since underscored, is", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "‘narrow,’ ‘stringent,’ and of ‘modest scope.’”). “This", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "admonition has acquired special force” after Congress", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "passed 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e), which empowers the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "Court to “prescribe rules . . . to provide for an appeal of an", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "otherwise provided for under [§ 1292].” Mohawk Indus.,", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 113–14 (2009); Garraway", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "v. Ciufo, 113 F.4th 1210, 1221 (9th Cir. 2024). Judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "rulemaking, rather than “expansion by court decision,” was", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "accordingly to be “the preferred means for determining", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "whether and when prejudgment orders should be", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "immediately appealable.” Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 113.", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "Such congressional “designation of the rulemaking process", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "as the way to define or refine when a district court ruling is", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "8 USA V. BURTON", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "‘final’” is entitled to our “full respect.” Swint v. Chambers", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 48 (1995).", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "B.", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "Defendant’s appeal does not fall within the narrow class", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "of cases to which the collateral-order doctrine applies.", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "While the district court’s order might be viewed as", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "“conclusively” resolving a disputed question that is", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "“completely separate” from the merits of the case (satisfying", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "prongs one and two of the collateral-order doctrine), it is not", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "“effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "and thus fails to satisfy the final prong of the doctrine. Will,", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "546 U.S. at 349. We “lack collateral order jurisdiction if", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "even one [prong] is not met.” McElmurry v. U.S. Bank Nat.", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "Ass’n, 495 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007).", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Defendant is correct that the case against him would", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "have to be dismissed if he is a member of the armed forces.", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "But a denial of that alleged right, on the basis that he is not", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "a member, does not entitle him to a fast-pass ticket to our", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "court: “[n]ot every order denying a claim of right to prevail", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "without trial satisfies [the collateral order doctrine’s] third", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "condition.” Est. of Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana, 152 F.4th", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2025) (quotation omitted). If the law", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "were otherwise, a defendant could immediately appeal any", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "time he loses a dispositive motion before trial.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "That is not the law. The Supreme Court has instructed", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "that only those orders that deny “an immunity from suit” are", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "subject to interlocutory appeal under the collateral-order", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "doctrine. Geo Grp., 607 U.S. at 444–447. The jurisdictional", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "bar reflected in section 3730(e)(1) is not an immunity from", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "suit. Typically, an immunity is an “affirmative defense” and", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "“can be waived”; a jurisdictional bar usually cannot be", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "waived. In re Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "USA V. BURTON 9", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "Litig., 317 F.3d 134, 151 (2d Cir. 2003). And a jurisdictional", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "defense (even of the rare waivable variety, such as a", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "personal-jurisdiction defense) generally has not been treated", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "by the Supreme Court or our court as an immunity from suit,", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "the denial of which would permit an instant appeal. See, e.g.,", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 526–27 (1988)", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "(personal jurisdiction); United States v. Layton, 645 F.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "681, 683 (9th Cir. 1981) (subject matter jurisdiction).", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "Section 3730(e)(1)’s phrasing suggests, too, that the bar", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "does not grant an immunity. An immunity is an “entitlement", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "not to stand trial.” Geo Grp., 607 U.S. at 446 (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "omitted). But section 3730(e)(1) speaks in terms of a court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "power—not a personal entitlement: “No court shall have", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over an action brought by . . . .” Contrast this", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "with classic immunities from the burdens of trial—i.e.,", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause (“nor", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "put in jeopardy of life or limb”), see Abney v. United States,", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "431 U.S. 651, 660–61 (1977), and the Speech or Debate", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Clause (“and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "shall not be questioned in any other Place”), see Helstoski v.", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 501 n.1 (1979). Nor is section", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "3730(e)(1) akin to other immunities for which immediate", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "appeal is available, such as absolute immunity or qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "immunity (if it turns on law not fact). See Nixon v.", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742–43 (1982); Mitchell v.", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). These immunities are", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "attached to the person—the very nature of which is to give", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "him protection from trial. The same cannot be said of section", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "3730(e)(1), which goes to a court’s power and instructs a", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "court what to do. It does not confer an immunity.", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "One might argue that section 3730(e)(1) does confer an", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "immunity because it refers to specific types of individuals—", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "10 USA V. BURTON", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "“member[s] of the armed forces.” But that argument would", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "be incorrect. Section 3730(e)(1) does not protect a member", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "of the armed forces from False Claim Act suits generally, as", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "one might expect an immunity to do. Rather, the section", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "only divests jurisdiction over actions brought by members of", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "the armed forces against other members; it does not, for", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "example, bar suits brought by non-members or by the", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "government. This feature of the statute reinforces the", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "conclusion that it does not provide an immunity from suit.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "Nor would denying a defense under section 3730(e)(1)", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "“undermine important constitutional or policy interests” that", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "might justify finding an immunity here. See Geo Grp., 607", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "U.S. at 445 n.1; id. at 459 (Alito, J., concurring in the", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "judgment); see also Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "495, 502 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“The importance of", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "the right asserted has always been a significant part of our", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "collateral order doctrine.”). What is sufficiently “important”", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "to overcome the final-judgment rule is not a freewheeling", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "inquiry; the inquiry must be anchored in, and cabined by,", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "precedent. And precedent instructs us to deny an immediate", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "appeal here.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Courts have denied an immediate appeal in the following", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "instances: when a discovery order would vitiate a party’s", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "attorney-client privilege (Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 108–", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "113); when a defendant claims to be subject to vindictive or", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "selective prosecution (United States v. Hollywood Motor", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 264–65 (1982) (per curiam)); when", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "a defendant claims that an extradition treaty exempts him", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "from civil service of process (Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "at 524); when a court disregards a forum-selection clause", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "(Lauro Lines, 490 U.S. at 501); when an order denies the", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "effect to a settlement agreement (Digital Equip. Corp. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 884 (1994)); when a", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "USA V. BURTON 11", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "defense of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is denied", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "(Layton, 645 F.2d at 683); and when a defense under the", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "Federal Tort Claims Act’s “judgment bar” is rejected (Will,", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "546 U.S. at 347).", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "The interests implicated in those instances were quite", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "important. One cannot quarrel, for example, with the", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "significance of the attorney-client privilege, deeply rooted as", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "it is in the common law. Yet courts have not deemed that", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "interest and others important enough to be vindicated in an", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "interlocutory posture. If those interests were not enough, it", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "is hard to see how the interest here would be.", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court’s case in Will is perhaps the most", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "instructive. In Will, the plaintiffs had brought a lawsuit", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "against federal-government defendants under the Federal", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for damaging the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "property; that suit was dismissed. 546 U.S. at 348. One of", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "the plaintiffs subsequently brought a Bivens action against", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "those defendants alleging violations under the Due Process", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "Clause for the same underlying harm. Id. The government", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "defendants, in that Bivens action, invoked the FTCA’s", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "“judgment bar,” which provides that “the judgment in an", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "action under [the FTCA] shall constitute a complete bar to", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "matter, against the employee of the government whose act or", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "omission gave rise to the claim.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "§ 2676). That defense was denied, and the government", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "sought an interlocutory appeal. Id. at 348–49. The Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "Court held that the government defendants could not pursue", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "such an appeal under the collateral-order doctrine. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "355. “There is,” the Court said, “no such public interest at", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "stake” that would justify an immediate appeal “simply", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "because the judgment bar is said to be applicable.” Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "353. “[S]imply abbreviating litigation troublesome to", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "12 USA V. BURTON", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "Government employees,” the Court declared, was not", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "“important enough for Cohen treatment.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "That reasoning applies here. Section 3730(e)(1) bars", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "certain actions in the way that the FTCA’s “judgment bar”", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "does. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2676 (“judgment . . . shall", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "constitute a complete bar to any action”) with 31 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "§ 3730(e)(1) (“[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "action”). Just as in Will, “abbreviating litigation” by dint of", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "the bar here is not enough to permit an interlocutory appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "546 U.S. at 353. If anything, the “judgment bar” in Will", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "appears to be a stronger candidate for interlocutory treatment", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "than the jurisdictional bar here. Id. The “judgment bar”", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "resembles res judicata, a principle that seeks precisely to", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "“avoid[]” the sort of “duplicative litigation” that one might", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "have thought an immunity (such as the one against double", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "jeopardy) served to preclude. See id. at 354. By contrast, no", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "such interest in avoiding duplicative litigation is necessarily", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "reflected in section 3730(e)(1)’s jurisdictional bar. Yet the", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "Court in Will concluded that the “judgment bar” was not", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "“important enough” to justify an immediate appeal. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "353. If the issue was not important enough there, then surely", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "it is not important enough here.", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "Defendant nevertheless argues for section 3730(e)(1)’s", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "importance by invoking the Feres doctrine. That doctrine", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "holds that “the Government is not liable under the Federal", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "service.” Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "And it is true that this court has held that a district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "“refusal to dismiss on Feres grounds” is immediately", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "appealable “under the collateral order doctrine.” Lutz v.", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "Sec’y of Air Force, 944 F.2d 1477, 1484 (9th Cir. 1991). But", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "while immediate appeals on Feres grounds have been", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "USA V. BURTON 13", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "justified in order to “safeguard[] military discipline” from", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "“judicial intrusion,” id. at 1483–84, the same does not hold", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "true here.", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "Suits under the False Claims Act do not seek redress of", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "“injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "in the course of activity incident to service.” Feres, 340 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "at 146. They seek to smoke out fraud. Indeed, the Act’s", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "genesis was to stop military contractors and servicemembers", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "from making false claims for payments and bilking the U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "government. United States v. Bornstein, 423 U.S. 303, 309", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "(1976); Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 579", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "U.S. 176, 181–82 (2016); Act of Mar. 2, 1863, ch. 67 § 1, 12", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "Stat. 696. Accordingly, to say that allowing false-claims", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "actions to proceed against servicemembers would eviscerate", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "an interest so important as to justify immediate appeal would", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "be to disregard the Act’s history and purpose. Suits that seek", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "to block government fraud, in short, are nothing like suits", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "alleging service-related injuries that Feres bars.", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "Cries here of “judicial intrusion” into military affairs are", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "also overblown when the government itself can direct", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "dismissal of the qui tam action. “[T]he Government may", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "seek dismissal of an FCA action over a relator’s objection so", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "long as it intervened sometime in the litigation, whether at", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "the outset or afterward.” United States, ex rel. Polansky v.", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419, 424 (2023). The point is", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "this: if the denial of a section 3730(e)(1) defense is", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "“important enough” to the government (because it deems", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "such denial to be unduly disruptive of military discipline or", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "for whatever reason), the government can itself seek", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "dismissal of the False Claims Act suit, thus eliminating any", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "need for an immediate appeal. Courts need not create an", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "avenue for such an appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "14 USA V. BURTON", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "To convince us to hear a case on interlocutory appeal is", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "not impossible but it is very hard. Defendant here does not", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "meet that high bar. Section 3730(e)(1) does not confer an", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "immunity; it is a jurisdictional bar. We lack jurisdiction over", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "an appeal from a non-final order declining to apply that bar.", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "The appeal is dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_406" } ], "word_count": 3387, "cites": [ "584\nU.S. 59", "337 U.S. 541", "546 U.S.\n345", "607 U.S. 438", "558 U.S. 100", "514 U.S. 35", "486 U.S. 517", "431 U.S. 651", "442 U.S. 500", "457 U.S. 731", "472 U.S. 511", "490 U.S.\n495", "458 U.S. 263", "511 U.S. 863", "340 U.S. 135", "423 U.S. 303", "579\nU.S. 176", "599 U.S. 419", "309 F.3d 1203", "186\nF.4th 663", "113 F.4th 1210", "495 F.3d 1136", "152 F.4th\n1185", "317 F.3d 134", "645 F.2d\n681", "944 F.2d 1477" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "92f47ccd41857a119712d3d8cdf7a79f9771fe05b7d63cff1cd75c749eadc959", "source_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/28/25-87.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T15:26:52.039+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-25-87-2026-09-28", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-87-2026-09-28", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-87-2026-09-28", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-25-87-2026-09-28", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "92f47ccd41857a119712d3d8cdf7a79f9771fe05b7d63cff1cd75c749eadc959", "recomputed_sha256": "92f47ccd41857a119712d3d8cdf7a79f9771fe05b7d63cff1cd75c749eadc959", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-06T04:57:17.724Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:993d2741dc2852b5746e0d174a9fadeeb32addcbe49c338b08476d86e31dd6dc", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "expires": "2026-10-07T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-05+legal-2026-10-05+2026-10-05T21:32:42", "content_hash": "sha256:993d2741dc2852b5746e0d174a9fadeeb32addcbe49c338b08476d86e31dd6dc", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-06T05:57:17.899Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-87-2026-09-28", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }