Plaintiff claims that, at the latest, the six-year statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff submitted its budgets containing the inflated figures to the DCAA on March 14, 1989. Defendant claims that the six-year statute of limitations began to run upon the final payment to plaintiff which was made in reliance upon the fraudulent claims. This occurred on October 27,1989. The statute of limitations under 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1) begins to run upon the commission of the violation. Thus, the issue is when a violation actually occurs. Many courts have held that the commission of the violation occurs on the date of the Government’s final payment on the false claim. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Kreindler & Kreindler v. United Technologies Corp., 985 F.2d 1148, 1157 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 973, 113 S.Ct. 2962,
holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court holding that limitations period begins to run on date notice was received at claimants residence even if claimant did not receive it until a later date