Photo of Mackenzie Jessup

As part of the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, Mackenzie offers a broad range of experience representing clients at both trial and appellate court levels. Mackenzie focuses her practice on defending clients involved in complex commercial litigation, including: fraud, unfair competition, contract disputes, class actions, and violations of state and federal laws, such as the False Claims Act (FCA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and unfair and deceptive practices acts (UDAP).

On September 12, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a precedential ruling, held that courts are not required to hold an in-person hearing prior to granting a government’s request to dismiss a qui tam whistleblower’s federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) or Delaware False Claims Act (“DFCA”) suit. However, the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled yesterday that the same False Claims Act statute of limitations period applies whether an action is brought and pursued by a private person, known as a “relator,” or by the government. The opinion focuses on the plain language of the statute and

On December 22, a federal court applied the plain language of the “whistleblower-protection provisions” of the False Claims Act, including 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), to hold that a plaintiff may bring a retaliation claim against a former employer even if that employer was not the subject of any FCA allegations.  In O’Hara v. NIKA Technologies