Brent Berry v. Native American Services Corporation
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Date FiledNovember 12, 2026
Docket25-12009
StatusUnpublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
USCA11 Case: 25-12009 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 1 of 4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 25-12009
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DENNIE GOSE,
Plaintiff,
BRENT BERRY,
SEAN GOSE,
as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Deceased Relator Dennie Gose,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Movant-Appellant,
versus
NATIVE AMERICAN SERVICES CORPORATION,
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, INC.,
d.b.a. Great American Insurance Company,
Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 25-12009 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 25-12009
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cv-03411-KKM-AEP
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dennie Gose, Sean Gose—as personal representative of the
estate of Dennie Gose—and Brent Berry (collectively, “the Rela-
tors”) and the Government appeal the District Court’s order grant-
ing Native American Services Corporation and Great American In-
surance Group, Inc., d/b/a Great American Insurance Company’s
(collectively, “the Defendants”) motion for judgment on the plead-
ings as to the Relators’ False Claims Act (“FCA”) claims brought
pursuant to the Act’s qui tam provisions. The Government moves
for summary reversal of the District Court’s order, asserting that
the sole basis on which the court granted judgment—that the
FCA’s qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause—was
rejected in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates,
LLC, No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. Sep. 1, 2026) (published). The Gov-
ernment represents that the Defendants do not oppose the motion
for summary reversal, and the Defendants filed no response to the
Government’s motion.
Summary disposition is appropriate where time is of the es-
sence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are
involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where
“the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law
USCA11 Case: 25-12009 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 3 of 4
25-12009 Opinion of the Court 3
so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of
the case . . . .” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162
(5th Cir. 1969).
In Zafirov, the defendants moved for judgment on the plead-
ings, arguing that the FCA’s qui tam provisions violated the Ap-
pointments Clause, the Take Care Clause, and the Vesting Clause.
Zafirov, No. 24-13581, manuscript op. at 3–4. The district court
granted the defendants’ motion solely on the defendants’ Appoint-
ments Clause argument and did not address the Take Care Clause
or Vesting Clause arguments the defendants raised. Id. at 4. On ap-
peal, we vacated and remanded the district court’s order dismissing
the qui tam action, holding that the FCA’s qui tam provisions do
not violate the Appointments Clause. Id. at 18. We remanded with
instructions to the district court to evaluate the defendants’ Take
Care and Vesting Clause arguments. Id. at 18.
Here, we grant the Government’s motion to summarily re-
verse the District Court’s order because our decision in Zafirov
shows that the Relators’ and the Government’s position is clearly
correct as a matter of law. Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162. The District
Court in this case granted judgment on the pleadings to the De-
fendants on the sole basis that the FCA’s qui tam provisions violated
the Appointments Clause. The District Court declined to reach the
Defendants’ remaining arguments regarding the Vesting and Take
Care Clauses. Because our decision in Zafirov controls the outcome
of this appeal, the Relators’ and the Government’s motion for sum-
USCA11 Case: 25-12009 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 25-12009
mary reversal is GRANTED. As in Zafirov, we remand to the Dis-
trict Court with instructions to address the Defendants’ remaining
arguments.
VACATED AND REMANDED.