notice of Relator’s claims, they could have intervened earlier, participated fully in the investigation of Relator’s claims and subsequently made more informed decisions as to how to proceed in relation to the federal Government’s suit. The federal Government was duly notified by Relator and decided to intervene; the States were not afforded that necessary opportunity. Compare Lavender Hill Farm, at 2002 WL 31513418, *6 (where the Government has not yet decided whether to intervene in a qui tarn suit, purposes of seal provision were sufficiently frustrated by relator’s failure to file complaint under seal as to warrant dismissal) with Kusner, at 1996 WL 287259, *5 (where the Government had already decided not to intervene in qui tarn s rp. 1995 WL 608462, at *3 (E.D.La. Oct. 16, 1995)(<HOLDING>); Erickson ex rel. United States v. Am. Inst.
holding that the ninetyday filing requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and is subject to equitable tolling holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional holding that in camera filing requirement is jurisdictional and that defects warrant dismissal holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional