In an en banc decision, the Nevada Supreme Court considered an issue of first impression regarding NRS 357.080(3)(b).2 Specifically, the court addressed whether NRS 357.080(3)(b) requires dismissal of a private action brought on behalf of the State under the Nevada False Claims Act (“NFCA”), where a political subdivision, such as a county, brings a subsequent civil suit on its own behalf against the same parties based on the same allegations or transactions in the private action. As a matter of first impression, the court utilized statutory interpretation to determine the Nevada Legislature’s intent behind NFCA language that differed from its federal counterpart. The court held that NRS 357.080(3)(b) does not contain a sequencing requirement, as its federal counterpart does, and, thus, applies to any such private action, even if initiated prior to the civil suit’s commencement. However, if the private action is filed on behalf of a different governmental entity than the civil action that involves the same defendant party and these same allegations or transactions, then the private action’s dismissal is not required pursuant to NRS 357.080(3)(b).
Miller, Elijah J., "Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (Sept. 28, 2023)" (2023). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1608.