Page:U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources.pdf/15

Rh refutes Polansky’s (and the dissent’s) position—that Paragraph 2 (and also Paragraph 1) applies only when the Government’s intervention occurs during the seal period. Recall the way the statute works: The Government can intervene at that early time—but so too it can “intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause.” §3730(c)(3); see. The consequence of a successful motion to intervene, in the FCA context as in any other, is to turn the movant into a party. See Eisenstein, 556 U. S., at 933–934. And once the Government becomes a party, it (alongside the relator) does what parties do: It “proceeds with the action.” That quoted phrase, you’ll recall, is the trigger for Paragraph 1: When the Government “proceeds with the action,” it assumes “primary responsibility” for the case’s “prosecuti[on].” And as shown above, whenever that is true, Paragraph 2 kicks in too. See. So the right to dismiss under Subparagraph (2)(A) attends a later intervention, just as it does an earlier one. Either way, the Government becomes a party, proceeding with the action; so either way, it acquires the right to dismiss.

Polansky’s contrary argument (echoed in the dissent) mainly relies on the clause in Paragraph 3 telling the court that it may not “limit[] the status and rights” of the relator