United States and Georgia, ex rel. Barbara Senters v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) provides that “circumstances constituting fraud” must be “state[d] with particularity.” The circuits are divided over what Rule 9(b) requires in qui tam cases arising under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, which prohibits the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Government. Six circuits allow qui tam plaintiffs to proceed if the submission of false claims can reasonably be inferred from other well-pleaded facts. Three circuits, including the Eleventh, hold that the submission of claims cannot be inferred from other circumstances; plaintiffs must plead direct, firsthand knowledge of actual false claims submitted to the Government to overcome dismissal. Three others generally require the plaintiff to plead the details of a specific false invoice submitted to the Government. This Court has thrice sought the views of the United States. Each time, the Government argued that a qui tam complaint satisfies Rule 9(b) if it pleads “other sufficiently reliable indicia supporting a strong inference that false claims were submitted to the government,” but predicted that the circuit conflict would resolve itself. It has not. A complementary petition presenting the same issue is pending before this Court in United States ex rel. Olsen v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., No. 25-347. The Question Presented is: Whether a qui tam complaint satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) when it alleges detailed firsthand knowledge of a fraudulent billing scheme paired with reliable indicia supporting a strong inference that false claims were submitted to the Government, or whether relators must also plead direct knowledge of actual false claim submissions.