Summary
The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal with prejudice of a qui tam False Claims Act complaint against Hypoguard USA, Inc. for failure to plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying pre-judgment and post-judgment leave to amend, concluding that the proposed amended complaint did not identify specific false Medicare reimbursement claims or adequately allege materiality and other FCA elements.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because the proposed amendments described at the hearing would not cure the complaint's failure to plead the alleged False Claims Act fraud with particularity.
- The district court properly denied Roop's post-judgment motion because post-judgment motions for leave to amend are disfavored, Roop had already received and improperly pursued pre-judgment leave to amend, failed to explain how the proposed pleading cured the deficiencies, and the proposed complaint in fact remained deficient.
- The proposed First Amended Complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b) because it failed to plead with particularity any false Medicare reimbursement claim, any material false certification or statement, or how the alleged product defects and FDA reporting violations influenced the government's payment decisions.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying pre-judgment leave to amend a False Claims Act complaint that concededly failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Roop's post-judgment motion under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) to alter or amend the judgment and permit filing of a proposed First Amended Complaint.
- What standards govern a post-judgment motion for leave to amend a complaint dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b).
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (17)
- United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 555-59 (8th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- United States ex rel. Costner v. United States, 317 F.3d 883, 887-88 (8th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- United States ex rel. Lee v. Fairview Health Sys., 413 F.3d 748-50 (8th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- United States ex rel. SNAPP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 532 F.3d 496, 506-07 (6th Cir. 2008)(discussed)
- United States ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., 389 F.3d 1251, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2004)(followed by analogy)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)(followed)
- Briehl v. General Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623, 629 (8th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assoc. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- United States ex rel. Hebert v. Dizney, 2008 WL 4538308, at *4 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2008)(discussed)
- Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 865 (5th Cir. 2003)(discussed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…