Posted on June 21, 2012 in Case Cites
Written by: David B. Honig
570 F.3d 849, 844 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Court of Appeals ruled that a whistleblower met Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)’s requirement to plead fraud “with particularity,” even where he did not produce actual invoices submitted to the government, where the contract required submission of invoices and the whistleblower alleged false certification of compliance with the contract.
The Court did affirm dismissal of another portion of the complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity. The whistleblower alleged that Rolls Royce and the government negotiated a settlement of a prior dispute when the entire amount paid should have been refunded; however, he failed to provide any detail as to the negotations. For that reason, that portion of the complaint was properly dismissed.
For more information, please contact David B. Honig at firstname.lastname@example.org or (317) 977-1447.