Editing False Claims Act of 1863 (section)

==Rule 9(b) circuit split==

Under Rule 9(b) of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]], allegations of fraud or mistake must be pleaded with particularity.<ref>Federal Rules of Procedure. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_9 Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)]</ref> All appeals courts to have addressed the issue of whether Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to qui tam actions have held that the heightened standard applies.<ref>[http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/duxbury_v_ortho_biotech_products.pdf Recent Cases : False Claims Act — Jurisdiction — First Circuit Adopts Plain Meaning of Requirement that Plaintiffs Give Government their Information Before Filing Suit.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140811112543/http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/duxbury_v_ortho_biotech_products.pdf |date=2014-08-11 }}  United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Products, L.P., 579 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009).</ref>  The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]],<ref>United States Court Of Appeals for The Fifth Circuit Decision.  May 5, 2014.  United States Of America ex rel. John Dee Spicer, Chapter 7 Trustee, Substituted As Qui Tam Plaintiff And Relator Per #122 Order, Trustee, for the Bankruptcy Estate of Westbrook Navigator, Plaintiff–Appellant–Appellee, v. Clifford Westbrook, Qui Tam Plaintiff And Relator, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Navistar Defense, L.L.C., Formerly Known As International Military & Government, L.L.C.; Navistar, Incorporated; Defiance Metal Products Company; Jerry Bell, Individually, Doing Business as Bell's Conversions, Incorporated, Doing Business As Bell's Custom Conversions; and Bell's Conversions, Incorporated, Doing Business As Bell's Custom Conversions, Defendants–Appellees.  No. 12-10858 [http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-10858-CV0.pdf Fifth Circuit Decision]</ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]],<ref>United States Court Of Appeals for The Sixth Circuit Decision. May 12, 2006.  Philip H. Sanderson, Plaintiff-Appellant,  v.  HCA-The Healthcare Company; Columbia Health Care Corporation; Hospital Corporation of America; and Healthtrust Inc., Defendants-Appellees.  No. 04-6342  [http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0161p-06.pdf Sixth Circuit Decision]</ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit]],<ref>United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Decision. June 30, 2009 United States of America on the relation of Curtis J. Lusby, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rolls-Royce Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 08-3593. [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1149995.html Seventh Circuit Decision]</ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|Eighth Circuit]],<ref>United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit Decision. May 5, 2011.  United States of America ex rel. Rudy Vigil, Plaintiff Relator - Appellant, v. Nelnet, Inc.; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Citigroup, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-1784 [http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/05/101784P.pdf Eight Circuit Decision] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110523204934/http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/05/101784P.pdf |date=2011-05-23 }}</ref>   the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuit]],<ref>United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Decision. December 5, 2006.  UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Edyth L. Sikkenga, and Edyth L. Sikkenga, on her own behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield of Utah, formerly known as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Utah;  Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc.;  John P. Mitchell;  Jed H. Pitcher;  and Frank Brown, Defendants-Appellees. No. 05-4088. [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1080281.html Tenth Circuit Decision]</ref> and the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]]<ref>United States Court Of Appeals for The Eleventh Circuit Decision. December 4, 2009.  James Hopper, Colin Hutto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. United States Of America, Defendants-Appellees.  No. 08-15810 [http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200815810.pdf Eleventh Circuit Decision]</ref>  have all found that plaintiffs must allege specific false claims.

In 2010, the First Circuit decision in ''U.S. ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P.''(2009) and the Eleventh Circuit ruling in ''U.S. ex rel. Hopper v. Solvay Pharms., Inc.''(2009) were both appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]. The Court denied ''[[certiorari]]'' for both cases, however, declining to resolve the divergent appeals court decisions.<ref>''Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P. v. United States ex rel. Duxbury'', 78 U.S.L.W. 3361 (U.S. June 21, 2010) and ''United States ex rel. Hopper v. Solvay Pharms., Inc.'', 78 U.S.L.W. 3531 (U.S. June 21, 2010) [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/062110.ZOR.html Denial of ''certiorari'']</ref>