Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Mike Bothwell
Profession: Qui Tam Attorney

After having their FCA claims dismissed for lack of specificity in pleading pursuant to Rule 9(b), the relators of United States ex rel. Gagne v. City of Worcester, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53742 (D.C. Mass. July 19, 2008), moved for reconsideration, contending that the court erred in applying Rule 9(b) particularity requirements to claims brought under §§ 3729(a)(2) and (a)(3). Citing the First Circuit's decision in United States ex rel. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., 507 F.3d 720, 733 (1st Cir. 2007), the district court denied relators' argument that Rule 9(b) did not apply to a § 3729(a)(2) claim. Further, although the First Circuit had not addressed the applicability of Rule 9(b) to a § 3729(a)(3) conspiracy claim, the District Court of Massachusetts looked to other circuits in concluding that Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirements applied to that subsection of the FCA as well.