Michael McElligott v. McKesson Corporation

facts as alleged in Relators’ second amended complaint are true. United States ex

rel. Campie v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 862 F.3d 890, 898 (9th Cir. 2017). We “examine

only whether [R]elators’ allegations support a cause of action under the False

Claims Act under the theories presented,” id., applying the heightened pleading

standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), see Ebeid ex rel. United States

v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). We review a district court’s denial

of leave to amend for abuse of discretion but conduct de novo review of an order

finding a proposed amendment futile. See Cohen v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., 16 F.4th

1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2021).

1. Relators first contend that the second amended complaint adequately

alleges that McKesson “knowingly present[ed], or cause[d] to be presented, a false

or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” by making an express false

*** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

2 certification. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). To plead a claim for express false

certification, a complaint must allege facts from which it may…