In an employment termination action brought under the False Claims Act, district court judgment is reversed where: 1) the special status of the United States counsels against reflexive transfer of rules of preclusion from private to public litigation, and thus the resolution of personal employment litigation does not preclude a qui tam action, in which the relator acts as a representative of the public; and 2) plaintiff Lusby's latest proposed complaint alleged fraud with the requisite particularity, as the accusations were not vague and the complaint showed in detail the nature of the charge. The judgment of the district court is affirmed with respect to the claim under 31 U.S.C. sec. 3729(a)(7) as the complaint does not satisfy Rule 9(b).
Read US (ex rel. Lusby) v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 08-3593
Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Argued MAY 6, 2009
Decided JUNE 30, 2009
Judges
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.
