U.S. ex rel. Knollenberg v. Computervision Corp.

41 F.3d 1515 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES, ex rel. Kenneth E. KNOLLENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, authorized to do business in California as: Computervision Corporation of Delaware; Prime Computer, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-55320. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 7, 1994. * Decided Nov. 7, 1994. 1 Before: D.W. NELSON, NORRIS, and BOGGS, ** Circuit Judges. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Plaintiff-relator Knollenberg appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3729 (a)(2), (3), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm. The jurisdictional bar at issue provides: 4 "No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a ... civil ... hearing ... unless ... the person bringing…