purposes of seal provision were not frustrated by premature service of complaint). In light of the foregoing considerations, the court hereby grants the States’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses the Relator’s claims for a share from the States’ settlements. An appropriate order follows. ORDER AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2006, upon consideration of the State Government Plaintiffs’ and District of Columbia’s (collectively, “the States”) Consolidated Opposition to and Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Relator’s Claims for a Share from State Settlements, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. 1 . Compare, e.g., N.M.S.A.1978 § 27-14-9 with 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d); see, e.g., State v. Altus Fin., S.A., 36 Cal.4th 1284, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 498, 116 P.3d 1175 (2005)(<HOLDING>). 2 . See, e.g., Friedman v. Fed. Deposit Ins.
holding that federal court decisions construing and applying the federal arbitration act may be regarded as persuasive authority in construing and applying corresponding provisions of our local arbitration act holding that a state agency is not a person subject to suit under federal false claims act holding that the california false claims act cfca is pattemed on similar federal legislation and in construing the cfca it is appropriate to look to precedent construing the equivalent federal false claims act holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments holding that in construing statute courts must first look to its plain language