Whistleblower Blawg

U.S. ex rel. Brinlee v. AECOM Government Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-310 (W.D. La. Apr. 25, 2007).  The district court required a repleading to meet Rule 9(b) standards.  Plaintiff attached two documents to the SAC and the court dismissed under Rule 9(b) because “[t]hese exhibits do not prove that the first inventory was never conducted or that the government was billed therefore.”  (emphasis added).  We are now proving things or, as in this case, not disproving the affirmative defense that the defendant alluded to in its Rule 9(b) brief (innocent mistake or negligence rather than fraud), but which was probably never pled because no answer was filed. 
In my view, taking all inferences in the light most favorable to dismissal, intent does not have to be pled with specificity and is inherently a jury issue.  Look where we have come.

Our firm recently completed oral arguments in the Sixth Circuit on the U.S. ex rel. Bledsoe case.  This is the second time the Bledsoe case has been before the Sixth Circuit.  The issues included FRCP Rule 9(b), alternate remedy, statute of limitations and the dismissal of all claims after determinations that certain claims were viable.  In its portion of the argument, the Government stated that it did not like the Bledsoe I decision and asked that it be overturned.  We hope to have the argument uploaded in a week or two.  The opinion could come in the next few months or just before the end of the year.