The Supreme Court recently denied three petitions for writs of certiorari, opting not to clarify the heightened pleading requirements for allegations of fraud under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The cases for which certiorari was denied are Molina Healthcare of Illinois v. Prose, No. 21-1145; United States ex rel. Owsley v. Fazzi Associates, Inc., No. 21-936; and Johnson v. Bethany Hospice LLC, No. 21-462.
For allegations of fraud, which includes allegations under the FCA, the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) require that a party state “with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” The party alleging “false claims” must allege that the defendant submitted false claims or caused false claims to be submitted to the government.
To gain clarity as to the requirements of Rule 9(b), three petitioners sought certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify the detail required to meet the heighted Rule 9(b) standard at the outset of an FCA dispute: more specifically, the petitioners asked the courts to clarify whether relators must allege specific details of false claims allegedly submitted to the government for payment.
In applying Rule 9(b) to FCA claims at the pleading stage, federal courts have adopted a variety of standards interpreting the level of detail necessary to adequately plead such claims. This disparity is exemplified by the circuit split between the Ninth and Sixth Circuits. The Ninth...
Read Full Story:
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiUGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmpkc3VwcmEuY...