Id. Thus, the court in Neal held that the six year statute of limitations provided for in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1) applies to plaintiffs who sue under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Id. at 866. Other courts have decided this issue in accord with the decision in Neal. See e.g., Kowalski v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, 993 F.Supp. 619, 620-21 (N.D.Ohio 1997) (borrowing statute of limitations from False Claims Act for application to claim of retaliation under Major Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1301, and implying, without substantial analysis, that six year limitations period in False Claims Act would apply to “protect[ ] employees who identify and cooperate in investigations of fraud against the United States.”); Grand ex rel. United States v. Northrop Corporation, 811 F.Supp. 333, 335-37 (S.D.Ohio 1992) (<HOLDING>). Analysis of these different jurisprudential
recognizing that questions of changed conditions and the amount of child support must be resolved on the particular facts of each case holding that six year limitations period set forth in 31 usc  3731b1 applied to plaintiff suing under 31 usc  3730h reeognizing that strange problems and questions may arise  under particular sets of facts but holding that under the facts of the case before it no such problem presented itself therefore plain meaning rule should prevail holding that a special relationship may arise from the factual circumstances of a particular case holding that 24 foreclosure was substantial under the facts of that case holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case