United States v. Cargill, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant (“Hansen”) appeals the dismissal of his qui tarn complaint against Appellees (“Cargill”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The defendants moved to dismiss Hansen’s complaint in district court pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the “public disclosure” bar of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (e)(4)(A), had been triggered. The district court found that there had been public disclosure of allegations substantially similar to those in Hansen’s complaint. The court then determined that Hansen did not qualify for the “original source” exception to the public disclosure bar because Hansen did not have “direct knowledge” of the alleged fraud. Because the public disclosure bar had been triggered and Hansen did not qualify for the original source exception, the district court dismissed Hansen’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We review dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the public disclosure bar in qui tam complaints da novo. A-1 Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. California, 202 F.3d 1238 , 1242 (9th…