individual statutes. See United States ex rel. Merena v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical, 52 F.Supp.2d 420 (E.D.Pa.1998), rev’d on other grounds, United States ex. rel. Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 205 F.3d 97 (3d Cir.2000). Any procedural failures on the part of the Relator must be considered in terms of their impact on such establishment of rights. 2. Service defects that frustrate statutory purposes will invalidate relators’ claims Although a few district courts outside the Third Circuit have held that the FCA’s filing and service requirements are jurisdictional, other persuasive circuit authority calls for a balancing of factors when determining whether procedural defects warrant dismissal. See United States ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 67 F.3d 242, 245 (9th Cir.l995)(<HOLDING>); United States ex. rel. Pilon v. Martin
holding that notice requirements under rule 252b3 are jurisdictional holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature holding explicitly that fca filing and service requirements are not jurisdictional requirements and requiring the district court to assess whether and to what extent the government was harmed before sanctioning relator with dismissal holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional