United States v. Burton — Ninth Circuit dismisses appeal from denial of False Claims Act jurisdictional defense

Case
United States of America; Mary Jane Brence; David Myung; Lucky Nguyen v. Jeremy Burton
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Judge
Johnnie B. Rawlinson (Bill Clinton, 2000); Gabriel P. Sanchez (Joe Biden, 2022); Eric C. Tung (Donald Trump, 2025)
Date Decided
September 28, 2026
Docket No.
25-87
Topics
False Claims Act; appellate jurisdiction; collateral-order doctrine; military service
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Air Force employees brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act alleging that Jeremy Burton, the former deputy chief information officer of the Space and Missile Systems Center, coordinated with a defense contractor to steer contracts to it and share in profits, contrary to federal acquisition rules.

Burton moved to dismiss under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(1), which removes jurisdiction over certain qui tam actions by present or former armed-forces members against other armed-forces members arising from service. The district court initially dismissed the claims against Burton, but later reconsidered, vacated that ruling, and concluded that he was a civilian employee rather than a member of the armed forces. Burton appealed before final judgment.

The Court’s Holding

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. An order denying dismissal ordinarily is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and Burton did not seek certification for an interlocutory appeal.

The collateral-order doctrine did not permit immediate review. Even assuming the district court conclusively resolved an issue separate from the merits, its ruling was reviewable after final judgment. Section 3730(e)(1) is a jurisdictional bar governing a court’s power, not an immunity from suit that protects a person from the burdens of litigation.

Key Takeaways

  • A denial of a § 3730(e)(1) defense is not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
  • The statute’s armed-forces limitation is jurisdictional, not a personal immunity from trial.
  • The court distinguished the Feres doctrine because False Claims Act suits target fraud against the government rather than service-related injuries.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces the narrow scope of collateral-order review. A defendant who asserts that a False Claims Act suit is barred by § 3730(e)(1) generally must litigate to a final judgment before seeking appellate review.

It also confirms that labeling a defense as dispositive does not make it immediately appealable; the asserted right must be one that would be irretrievably lost by proceeding to trial.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top