before i'd discuss the substantive matter about whether amendment of the the operative complaint would have been futile and then the procedural question of how we got to that point  this is a this is kind of a unique case with respect to the other cases that involve medicare overbilling false certification reverse false claims because the actor here is a state a it is the university of california san francisco and its medical center which are under prevailing case law not subject to false claims acts however because of their very nature a large portion of the revenue that is generated by the by the these entities comes from the federal government in terms of medicare and medicaid reimbursements and that's why the this case is a little bit different and for example case which i hope to discuss a little bit with your honor's and the other cases that involve medicare reimbursement because we've got individuals here individuals that we've pled they had knowledge that their systems were in adequate to report and bill correctly now this brings us to the question of what is sufficient under go the two thousand eight hundred case that came down here while this matter was pending for two types of two types of claims reverse false claims where you have notice that you've that your institution that you're receiving your salary from and your you're responsible for the budgets that it's cetera which these individuals are take action the exact action that was proposed by ms one which is engage quality assurance process to verify that your outsourced coding your your outsourced coding is in  fact actually coding correctly and then you're not submitting over billing statements to medicare so that's under the that's under reverse false claims act and then you have false certification what is required in terms of specificity under ninety which applies to the acts that are necessary to make an allegation under the false claims act for a false certification it's that you know of the facts that you have been in the past and your systems in the past do not meet that standard that you have a non de minimus differential between what truly occurred in terms of the coding for the for these medical services and what audits that ms one provided for just one department the department of neurology for just one department that these this that that differential exists you have knowledge of that you have the ability to raise your hand as the head of these departments and say please don't certify on our behalf who ever it is within the institution there's actually signing off and doing the end of the defendants you're actually i don't believe so your honor and this is this is because these are facts which are particularly within the defendant's knowledge ms one doesn't doesn't know who is actually the functionary that is actually signing off on this stuff what she doesn't know is that there's a compliance department that there's a head of her department and she takes it to them and says these are real problems  that if we look at something and this is not an instance where we have a chain conspiracy where we need to say this individual submitted this document and that led to this document being this certification being made at cetera this is more like the hub and spoke conspiracy where individuals every single individual that is named as an individual defendant the the corporate entity cannot be sued under the false claims act each one of these individuals had the knowledge had the author or ity and and failed to take action now we don't differentiate between them because they are the individuals that ms one complained to so she can help her st hand knowledge say yes i put these people on notice that they had knowledge nd they have the ability to take action and say wait a nd wherever signing off on this we can't sign off on this because because ms one it made a complaint and gave us a nonda minimal as a differential here that is shows that were over billing still man as you the yes you did rule ninety six in my mind for a long time on the basis of requirement alleging who what where and when keeping those four things in mind tell us what emigration one made any who what person knew what when and did what yes your honor prior to so in the and thirty she's she's identifying when she's providing knowledge to the individuals so this is the this is the notice aspect now remember we're talking here about false certification and reverse false claims i don't see the name of anyone in paragraph sixty no your honor what you what where when who we're were is an allegation that some person knew that the claim was false and submitted it anyway and got payment that's what i'd like to know so your honor that we're not making an allegation that they knew and submitted the payment we're talking about fal honor we don't i as i indicated previously i don't know we don't have the knowledge of who actually did the certification what we do have knowledge of is who is one complain to and it has enough that's enough to do to keep them  no your honor it's that that's alone is not sufficient they have to have the ability to end the duty to take corrective action and then fail to do so that is sufficient for the allegation  to amend so just to remind the court what happened this one has had multiple opportunities and has been given explicit instructions on how to adequately plead her case after she found her st amendment complain filed the nd amendment complaint that simply parroted the deficient allegations the district court had already rejected and you can see that in the red line and excerpts for twenty she added a series of copy and paste conclusory allegations of knowledge and a failure to act that encompassed each individual defendant but did not allege pacific facts that would make those conclusory allegations possible she made no real effort to overcome the problems with her complain and the district court exercise discretion to dismiss this prejudice if we look at the group pleading problem which was the basis in the dish reports dismissal this court has explained over and over in current the in been in schwartz industry you know plaintiff cannot simply want to gather different defendants and alleges that everyone did everything but that's exactly what did in this case the central allegation is that these individuals knew about going problems and did nothing to fix them but the problem is when you look beyond the conclusory legal statements to the specific facts included in the complaint we see that each defendant worked in a different department each defendant had different knowledge of these issues if any and they could not have had the haagen he is alleged to have general knowledge of everything and to have knowledge and failed to act he is not alleged to know about any specific problem in the complaint at all and she didn't add any allegations about him in the rubble i'm in the noisily permitted the continued presentation or cause to be proof of the claims for payment from united states government the only major cause to be made false records are statements in order to receive payment from the government and that together to conspire with the other named defendants the government false or fraudulent or those are really your allegations and they're not supported by any of the specific facts listed in the complaint earlier when she details of the mis billing problems so we have to look that's what she added but we have to look past that to see what would actually make that legal conclusion possible and there's nothing in the complaint that would you are and the same mr judge that's what judge will consider oh yes and i completely agree with that conclusion and the same is true for my scanner her in the complaint she's actually not alleged to know about any of these specific issues other than the j one visas which weren't briefed on appeal i think so the issue there is that misfire was told about a problem but there's a time lag between professional bills which are dr time and hospital bills which are basically bills for medical equipment if you have a procedure that requires both doctor time and medical equipment the idea is that you're billed for those at the same time the problem is sometimes the bills disconnected in the billing system because it takes the doctors longer to quantify the professional fees versus the fee for the six electrodes of the user during your medical test so what happened is those fears get separated and they're going to be filling issues that require someone to go into the billing system and reconcile the get everything matched up  together so miss one becomes aware of a problem like that she audit's the scope of the problem and presents the results of her audit which is that chart to her supervisors and then she is given access to the billing system to fix that problem and tells her supervisors and working with compliance to fix the problem the only possible inference from those allegations is that miss one is fixing the problem not that these defendants have knowledge that they're continuing to submit false claims to medicare she can raise a problem back and fix problems that she had identified and that by failing to correct that they had submitted a false claim but the complaint shows that they actually did go through and fix these problems so that claim is impossible and if there are no further questions we ask that the district court be affirmed ok thank you so council did identify a number of the paragraphs eighty two and eighty three where the v a code had given that audit had given notice to the individual defendants especially   and it's going on now with respect to the notion that we that they went ahead and fixed it these are these are submissions that the respondents submitted outside of the scope of the complaint the court didn't give us an opportunity if it was that the court was going to convert this to a motion for summary judgment to counter those allegations that going out and fixing it or the degree to which  issues in order for us saying here's these problems i'm going to dismiss the individual defendants and that you didn't have in your previous complaint and said this is without prejudiced you bringing a motion f back and said no i'm just missing it i'm not giving you an opportunity for leave to amend because you didn't demand well it's my practice run is that while there is a pending motion to dismiss not to run in and file another motion for leave to and while that m