CompFox AI Summary
Michael Riddle, a former DynCorp International employee, filed a whistleblower retaliation claim under the False Claims Act after being fired for expressing concerns about wrongful payments. The District Court dismissed his claim on August 19, 2010, ruling it was time-barred under the Texas Whistleblower Act's ninety-day statute of limitations. Riddle sought reconsideration and amendment of the judgment, arguing for the application of the Dodd-Frank Act's three-year limitations period, which became effective before the judgment. The court denied both motions, affirming that the statute of limitations applicable at the time of filing governs, and found no manifest error of law, new evidence, or change in controlling law to warrant altering the judgment.
Riddle v. Dyncorp International Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, N.D. Texas. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, N.D. Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Michael Riddle, a former DynCorp International employee, filed a whistleblower retaliation claim under the False Claims Act after being fired for expressing concerns about wrongful payments. The District Court dismissed his claim on August 19, 2010, ruling it was time-barred under the Texas Whistleblower Act's ninety-day statute of limitations. Riddle sought reconsideration and amendment of the judgment, arguing for the application of the Dodd-Frank Act's three-year limitations period, which became effective before the judgment. The court denied both motions, affirming that the statute of limitations applicable at the time of filing governs, and found no manifest error of law, new evidence, or change in controlling law to warrant altering the judgment.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.