United States v. Applera Corp.

MEMORANDUM *

MJ Research appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction its qui tam action against defendants. In determining under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) that it lacked jurisdiction, the district court found that MJ Research was not an original source under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (e)(4)(B) of the False Claims Act. We review for clear error factual findings relevant to a determination of subject matter jurisdiction. See United States ex rel. Biddle v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford, Jr. Univ., 161 F.3d 533, 535 (9th Cir.1998). We have jurisdiction over the district court’s final judgment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act applies whenever a complaint is based upon allegations or transactions of fraud disclosed in the news media. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (e)(4)(A). As long as the material elements of the fraud allegation are disclosed before the complaint is filed, the jurisdictional bar applies. See A-l Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. California, 202 F.3d 1238 , 1243 (9th Cir.2000). Here, as even plaintiff conceded before the district court, the information on which it relied was publicly disclosed before it…