Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
United States, ex rel. James Heron v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 21-1362 · judgment August 13, 2024
Certiorari denied · April 21, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 22% cert probability (95% interval 14%–34%)
Before the decision, about 5.4× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a federal-government petitioner, counsel who has won certiorari before, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
- The False Claims Act allows qui tam relators to sue those who violate the Act, but its “public-disclosure bar” requires courts to dismiss qui tam lawsuits “if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed— (i) in a Federal criminal, civil, or administrative hearing in which the Government or its agent is a party; (ii) in a congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other Federal report, hearing, audit, or investigation; or (iii) from the news media.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). Petitioner James Heron has brought a qui tam action against Nationstar for using forged promissory notes in foreclosure proceedings. The court of appeals, however, dismissed Mr. Heron’s qui tam lawsuit because it held that Mr. Heron’s allegations had already been “publicly disclosed” in four separate sources. Mr. Heron denies that the sources on which the court of appeals relied disclose anything remotely approaching the fraud that he has alleged against Nationstar, and the courts of appeals have adopted divergent and incompatible standards for determining whether a qui tam relator’s allegations or alleged transactions are “substantially the same” as those that have already been publicly disclosed. The issue presented is: What standard should courts use to determine whether a qui tam relator’s allegations or alleged transactions are “substantially the same” (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jonathan F. Mitchell
Mitchell Law PLLC
For respondent
Justin D. Balser
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Apr 21 2025Petition DENIED.
- Mar 26 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2025.
- Mar 10 2025Brief of respondent Nationstar Mortgage, LLC in opposition filed.
- Jan 30 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 10, 2025.
- Jan 29 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 6, 2025 to March 10, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 07 2025Response Requested. (Due February 6, 2025)
- Dec 31 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025.
- Dec 20 2024Waiver of right of respondent Nationstar Mortgage LLC to respond filed.
- Nov 12 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 16, 2024)