Posted on June 21, 2012 in Case Cites
Written by: David B. Honig
2002 WL 1066745 (E.D.La. Case No. Civ.A. 99-1767, May 28, 2002).
The False Claims Act whistleblower attempted to identify fraudulent schemes with enough detail to meet Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 9(b)’s requirement that all averments of fraud be plead “with particularity.” However, his complaint identified actions taken by “the defendants,” and did not clearly state who did what. Therefore, the complaint failed to meet Rule 9(b)’s “who, what, where, and when” requirement, and it was dismissed.
In some specific claims, the whistleblower described a scheme which, if carried out, would constitute a violatino of the False Claims Act. However, because he failed to identify any specific claims that were actually filed, his complaint, again, failed to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b), and was dismissed.
For more information, please contact David B. Honig at firstname.lastname@example.org or (317) 977-1447.