Daniel E. Shuey
Education
- Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 2009, cum laude
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Senior Notes Editor - Muskingum College, B.A., 2006
Bar & Court Admissions
Judicial Clerkships
- Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Supreme Court of Ohio
Dan is a partner in the Vorys Columbus office, a member of the litigation group, and is co-chair of the firm’s appellate practice subgroup and of the firm’s agriculture industry subgroup. He is experienced in appellate, constitutional, eminent domain, real property, commercial, and oil and gas litigation. Dan also serves on the national counsel team for a Fortune 200 company in benzene and chemical litigation. He has helped Fortune 500 companies, public universities, private hospitals, small businesses, and family farms successfully resolve disputes through all stages of litigation. Dan also serves as an adjunct professor at Capital Law School, where he coaches a moot court team.
His notable experience includes:
- Successfully presenting oral argument in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a bankruptcy trustee and defending against a petition of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States
- Successfully presenting oral argument in Ohio appellate courts
- Drafting dozens of party, amicus, and jurisdictional briefs in Federal and Ohio appellate courts, including both the United States and Ohio Supreme Courts
- Litigating original actions and certified questions of state law in the Supreme Court of Ohio
- Protecting clients’ property rights and maximizing compensation in eminent domain actions against the State of Ohio and property disputes arising from rails-to-trails projects
- Vindicating farmers’ First Amendment rights by pursuing Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against the Director of an Ohio state agency
- Obtaining for a farmer a unanimous stay ruling from Supreme Court stopping a trial court judge from holding proceedings in violation of Ohio’s Eminent Domain statute
- Obtaining significant compensation from the State of Ohio for numerous farmer clients related to the State’s flooding of the client’s properties
- Obtaining writ of prohibition from Supreme Court of Ohio preventing the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission from exercising jurisdiction over the issuance of oil and gas permits
- Obtaining permanent injunction at trial on behalf of a city contractor regarding the award of a city contract
- Obtaining dismissal of a retaliation case brought by former professors against a university client under § 1983, the False Claims Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- Obtaining dismissals of defamation, invasion of privacy, and related claims filed against national journalists and media organizations
Dan received his J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center where he was the senior notes editor for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics and represented clients as part of Georgetown’s Appellate Litigation Clinic. He received his B.A. summa cum laude from Muskingum College.
Dan served as a judicial law clerk for Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Professional and Community Activities
- • President of the Board of Trustees for the Ohioana Library Association
- • Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Member
- • Ohio State Bar Association Agricultural Law Committee, Member
- • Leadership Westerville, Class of 2020
- • Leadership Board, Church of the Messiah, Westerville, Ohio
- • Alumni Interviewer for Georgetown University Law School
Teaching/Speaking Engagements
- • 2020 American Farm Bureau Conference, “How ‘Rights of Nature Laws’ Can Impact Your Farm and Future”
- • CLE Presentation “Identifying Final Appealable Orders”
- • 2006 Southern Political Science Association Conference, “Innovation or More of the Same: The Pre-Primary Campaign Fundraising Characteristics of Insider and Outsider Candidates in the 2004 Presidential Election”
Insights
- 6/16/2016On Thursday, June 16, 2016 the United States Supreme Court released its decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar (No. 15-7). In Escobar—argued on April 19, 2016—the Court decided the legal validity of the “implied certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act (FCA).
- 4/22/2016On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar.
- 8/12/2015On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released a decision upholding an assertion of privilege by Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. (KBR) over internal investigation documents in a FCA suit alleging kickbacks and overbilling on Iraq war subcontracts.
- 7/20/2015The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11643 (9th. Cir. July 7, 2015), overruled existing Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the requirements for meeting the public disclosure rule’s original source exception, weakening the public disclosure bar in the Ninth Circuit and opening the door for increased qui tam activity within that jurisdiction.
- 5/26/2015Last month, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed the fair market value (FMV) standard as the primary measure of damages in False Claims Act (FCA) cases—and demonstrated the teeth of that requirement when evidence (including expert testimony) is not presented to support an FMV determination. United States v. United Technologies Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5476 (6th Cir. April 6, 2015), represented the culmination of a decades-long dispute between the government and United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney unit over pricing for engines supplied to the Air Force for use in its F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
- 5/26/2015Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. On the first question presented, the Court held that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) applies only to criminal offenses and thus does not toll the False Claims Act’s (FCA) statute of limitations indefinitely while the United States is in armed conflict.
- 2/12/2015Courts continue to whittle away at the public disclosure bar, historically one of the best ways to dispose of parasitic qui tam lawsuits. Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling regarding the impact of the 2010 amendments to the False Claims Act’s (FCA) public disclosure rule. In its opinion in U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., the Eleventh Circuitjoined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the public disclosure rule, as amended in 2010, is no longer a jurisdictional bar to an FCA action. Instead, under the amended version of the statute, defendants now must move to dismiss allegations that have been publicly disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- 2/5/2015A recent Sixth Circuit opinion provides defendants a valuable roadmap for using government witness testimony to defeat False Claims Act (FCA) claims on materiality grounds at the summary judgment stage. In U.S. ex rel. American Systems Consulting, Inc. v. ManTech Advanced Systems Int’l Inc., Case No. 14-3269 (6th Cir.), the court rejected the relator’s argument that materiality decisions should be left to a jury. Instead, the court expressly held that “a judge may decide as a matter of law whether a misrepresentation was material under the FCA.”
- 1/14/2015On January 8, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reinstated the government’s False Claims Act (FCA) claims in United States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., No. 13-2190. In reversing the district court’s dismissal of the government’s case, the Fourth Circuit highlighted, both explicitly and implicitly, the importance of the government’s decision to intervene in the case.
- 1/9/2015Earlier this week, Judge Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia imposed significant monetary sanctions against a pair of relators who blatantly and repeatedly violated the seal order in a pending qui tam action, United States ex rel. Bibby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:06-CV-0547-AT.
- 12/5/2014According to a recent Department of Justice press release regarding annual False Claims Act (FCA) recoveries, FCA recoveries continue to skyrocket, in keeping with the trend in recent years. 2014 marks the third straight year in which the Department of Justice has announced a record-setting annual recovery.
- 10/16/2014Last week, the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Boeing in U.S. ex rel. Smith v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 05-10730MLB (D. Kan.), a False Claims Act case in which the qui tam relators effectively tried to second-guess the professional judgment of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
- 7/2/2014Last week, the D.C. Circuit provided good news to defense contractors, health care providers and all other corporate entities doing business with the government. In a forceful opinion, the court overruled a trial court decision that portended disastrous consequences for privileged internal investigations by corporate legal departments.
- 7/1/2014Today, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. The petition presented two questions: (1) whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) applies to claims of civil fraud brought by qui tam relators, and (2) whether the False Claims Act’s (FCA) first-to-file rule is an absolute bar or whether it permits subsequent actions so long as the first-filed action had been dismissed on non-merits grounds prior to filing of the subsequent action.
- 6/2/2014A recent decision dismissing a whistleblower’s complaint with prejudice is good news for companies facing a False Claims Act (FCA) case that turns on the interpretation of a regulation or contractual provision. In U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Case No. CV 12-2214-JAK (C.D. Cal.), the court articulated a clear and defendant-friendly formulation of the pleading standard for scienter in such cases.
- 3/27/2014A recent False Claims Act decision serves as an important reminder that although qui tam relators may “stand in the shoes” of the government for purposes of bringing a lawsuit, they are not entitled to substitute their judgment for that of key government decision-makers to avoid summary judgment.