United States v. GPM Gas Corporation, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-21053
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL., JACK J. GRYNBERG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GPM GAS CORPORATION; PHILLIPS PIPELINE CO.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-2484
- - - - - - - - - -
November 9, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jack J. Grynberg, relator, appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act
(“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. Grynberg sued the defendant
companies on behalf of the Government, seeking to recover a portion
of natural gas royalties owed the Government, based on the
defendants’ having allegedly mismeasured and falsely reported the
volume and heating content of gas they produced on Indian lands.
The district court dismissed the action pursuant to United States
ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, 982 F. Supp. 1261

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-21053
-2-
(S.D. Tex. 1997) (“Riley I”), indicating that Grynberg lacked
standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring a lawsuit
on behalf of the Government.
Both the relator and the defendants now acknowledge that
both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc have
since recognized that a private citizen has standing to file an FCA
complaint under the FCA’s qui tam provisions. See Vermont Agency
of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S.
765, 778 (2000); Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 252 F.3d 749,
752 (5th Cir. 2001) (“Riley III”). Moreover, the defendants admit
that Riley III forecloses their contentions that the FCA’s
qui tam provisions violate the Take Care and Appointments Clauses
of Article II of the Constitution. See Riley III, 252 F.3d at 758.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is
REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the district court for
further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --