Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:97-CV-2200-TWT
May 16, 2001
ORDER
This is a qui tam action. It is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 48]. The Court previously granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 36] the Amended Complaint and granted leave to refile. The Second Amended Complaint suffers from the same defect as the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Relator contends that the Defendant defrauded the taxpayers of millions of dollars by the submission of false claims for reimbursement for laboratory services. He has not, however, identified a single fraudulent claim by date filed, amount or claim number that was actually submitted to the government. Identifying the type of claim form used and stating that a claim was filed on the day of service or a few days thereafter is not sufficient to identify the fraudulent claims with sufficient particularity to comply with Rule 9(b) in the context of this case. Performing unnecessary tests is not a violation of the False Claims Act. The particularity requirement of Rule 9 is a nullity if Plaintiff gets a ticket to the discovery process without identifying a single false claim by amount. "In this case, [Plaintiff] has merely described the allegedly illegal contracts and arrangements without identifying any person, place or time when an actual false claim or other illegal activity occurred. He alleges at best the existence of a general scheme or methodology by which defendants could have violated the False Claims Act. That is simply insufficient under Rule 9(b)." U.S. ex rel. Schwartz v. Coastal Healthcare Group, Inc., 232 F.3d 902 (Table) 2000 WL 1595976 (10th Cir. 2000). The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 48] is GRANTED. This action is dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED