United States Ex Rel. Longstaffe v. Litton Industries, Inc.

Good Law
296 F. Supp. 2d 1187·2003 WL 23002564·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23020
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 15, 2003SACV 03-0579-JVSCalifornia5,078 words

Opinion

Opinion

Selna, J.

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

This matter is currently before the Court on two Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed by Defendants Litton Industries, Inc. and its successor, Northrop Grumman Corporation (collectively “Litton”) on August 13, 2002. The first Motion is brought on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the allegations in the FAC are based on publicly disclosed allegations against Litton for which Relator Leslie Longstaffe (“Longstaffe”) was not an original source. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); 31 U.S.C.A. § 3730 (e)(4) (West 2003). Defendants request either an Order dismissing the FAC or a limited stay of the proceedings pending jurisdictional discovery. (Not. of Mot. to Dismiss FAC for Lack of Jurisdiction, p. 2.) The second Motion is made on the ground that Long-staffe has failed to plead fraud with particularity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), 12(b)(6).

The Motion to Dismiss for want of jurisdiction is granted, and the Motion to Dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity is thus rendered moot.

I. Background.

This is an action to recover damages, civil penalties, and other relief…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.