certification under the false claims act and if services were in fact not provided it qualifies as a false claim the second point that i'm going to discuss is that rebore properly played her false claims act cause of action i'll start with my first point this vs university of phoenix looked at the term certification and found that the term certification has no special significance any statement assertion or certification that is relevant to the government's decision to pay qualifies as a certification and the court also found that if that communication is false it is a false claim here in her pleading rebore played in paragraph seventeen i had a contract with the government and that contract required it to submit invoices for services provided and it also stated the complaint in paragraph seventeen that the contract provided the level of the services must conform with the requirements of the contract the complaint goes on to allege that b c s i submit invoices for services provided knowing that it did in fact not how many individual personnel are required to staff all the different pose yes your honor at a basic level it's a very simple agreement specifically the government pays some certain in exchange for a certain level of services a contract and there's no discretion within that that's what i guess i'm trying to figure out is it going to pay us some certain but we're directing you to have two people here one person all the way across or is that you know we'll leave it to your discretion to figure out what's required under the particular circumstances your honor the contract had requirements in fact it was called post manning requirements and in the contract itself there was a post manning requirement summary that list and that is rebirth properly pleaded her false claims cause of action this court in a b verse long waits held that they were later completed by doing one of two things either by listing representative examples of a false claim or by pleading particular details of a scheme to submit false claims paired with reasonable in disha that leads to a strong inference that a asked and specifically the attachment relate to february two thousand and seven the contract provides that the c s i must man certain posts and the contract includes these post manning inform the guards when to show up if nobody scheduled nobody shows up in addition the complaint pleads that remember my client viewed based upon her firsthand knowledge guard posts that were  there wasn't somebody schedule nobody showed up between those three pieces of evidence we have a representative example of a false claim made in february two thousand and seven because exhibit d the invoice says it's for services provided but in cut costs in connection with providing the services under this government contract in order to cut costs lou allen decided he was not going to post guards because that costs money and he decided that contrary to the expressed terms of the agreement he was not going to properly train guards he saved money there too and finally he decided he wasn't going to comply with the collective bargaining agreement which required him to pay guards for guard mount time which is when they  early become a quipped get briefed on what happened in the prior shift so they're preparing the guards didn't show up the government didn't get what it paid for and the complaint also please the same who our who was in charge of staffing the post and charge of paying the guards he was the same person who submitted invoices for services provided knowing that services were not provided so while we didn't have to submit the february two thousand and seven example in alternative we could have just merely described the scheme which i just did and the complaint notes that rebore having been inside has documentation to support how every invoice was a false claim how b they're provided having submitted an invoice for services provided that actually weren't there is the certification services were provided and knowing at the time they were submitted that services were not provided a false claim was needed and which is the reason why we were didn't attach them all but the complaint says she will make them available in discovery and here because we're in federal court we're supposed to state a shortened plain statement and that means that it's probably improper to attach thousands of pages so we've had one february two thousand and seven as a representative example and paragraph seventeen of the second and then a complaint states that invoices are to be submitted only after services and so my simply having the documents that you actually don't document the foundation for a false claim would you address that if your honor would look at exhibit a the court will see and if you look at exhibit b in exhibit c which recreated to compare the first to exhibit the court will note that there are times when a guard is supposed to be posted regardless of whether ship is imported out of port but in fact no guard was posted there's also express allegations in the complaint of shenanigans for example in the middle of the night when a guard must be posted it's unlikely the navy would notice nobody was posted so that's where guards  actually shown us an instance where the post when and then tell us the post time they contract requirement you haven't done that the court should not reject the specific shifts that were unmanned discuss the evidence to support that rebus firsthand knowledge her colleagues the schedules and so even if the court can't exactly understand exhibit c and doesn't want to take i would i can understand it perfectly e looking actually in the complaint to try to find where we say well this this post was i'm man as opposed to posts run plaintiff calls the requirement b is the only word you need to look at on because it's hard to understand what that is it's a schedule of the future and to the extent through so you sounds like you guys of us viewed as to how significant that document is that in terms of putting your client on notice as to what it needs to defend against i don't see why isn't that what are you in the dark of oh well we're we're in the dark about about everything about i mean there are just this contract that prove that summary judgment that no actually that's of your schedule here are the documents that reflect who actually was but there's nothing in the complaint that limits the allegation and the scope of this litigation and to that piece of evidence that your your schedule all of the for the future was ultimately not fulfilled the allegations go far beyond that that's just that's just what the plate of points to as and as an example in council so they said that's an example there can be a thousand different ways to make an allegation that you know any given post went on manned of you know twenty posts a day for several years this is an impossible target there's only two there in facts on most of those are the only two questions and they seem to me to be pretty objective pretty easy answer yes or no you know what she's alleging so why don't we just get to the proof and you can show that in fact actually the contract either  someone to be there at that time or if it doesn't there was something but we don't know what she's alleging that's that's my point the example that she gives of that february is a is a schedule with unfilled post that's just one thing that she saying as a basis for making that claim she could also be saying what she what she should be saying is i witnessed and unmanned post i knew that it was a requirement and i staked it out and i saw that no one was there when she says oh other i talked interviewed other guards and i took notes she doesn't say what those guards said so the fear in this case it would go far beyond we yes we know that we can prove that the schedule is merely a schedule but that's not going to be sufficient proof to defeat the whole case because the whole case is far greater than the allegations that i guess you know there was something west in his head didn't have to prove our case yet but there isn't hansen cleaning that she's required to comply with does she need there to meet the pleading requirement she needs and indeed at least and of reliability of her allocation so what she starts with is here's a schedule for the future and it has some openings in it she presumes they were not fill that is not plausible so she's not providing a plausible statement to begin the case if she had the route the reliable indices is eyewitness accounts people's saying is that summary evidence that's not actually tied up to specific incidences insufficient it is there it's just there is there's nothing reliable in or out location it is one hundred percent speculation which is odd given that she works there and she works there minder standing as  today and there's not one incident where she can cite in the complaint that states something reliable that that scheduled post was not actually fulfilled there is not one of them and so that is what cuts her off from going forward and i the only question is how you keep telling us that that exhibit b or testament b is merely a schedule words out in her complaint she identifies it as a schedule and that's why she produced exhibit c which is her own document to say oh here's the difference between the requirement and the schedule does not equal presence one way or the other if we are to take that as a working proposition but she were to win then her complaint to say ok well here's the schedule and here's the work requirement and i'm going to show you then on this in this day man post you know fifty two in this part of the base was unmanned  and i know that because then they if she showed a couple of representative examples where that at least get her on that part of the claim to the next phase it would certainly have a much greater chance of getting past that hurdle i don't want to say that i understand it would do it but that goes that goes much longer way in getting there so then the question would be what would be wrong with letting  r complaint at this point she's had three chances to write a complaint they were originally a complaint we filed a motion to dismiss she voluntarily withdrew it the second one the judge reviewed the judge went out of his way to give some free legal advice some pointers on what would what should be considered for a an amended complaint it was ignored we provided the district court with a red line version to compare the second then the complaint versus the third amended complaint and all that was added was it was nothing just a much of the allegations ones were not talking about were verb a them the same so there is no question that those were not a all that the notion what was and what was really added to the second and then the complaint or a bunch of conclusions some of which were repeated today that all invoices are false claims all the contracts are which contracts are at issue them which invoices all of them that is not specific that is putting us on the defense to defend every contract every day every shift and want that what about the training that's her other part he elevation right there the contracts for all guards you have to get one hundred twenty years of apprentice training and forty hours  training if you if you look at the complaint and that and parse the words that she's not alleging that she or anyone did not have the required hours of training that training allocation that training was kind of lousy training consisted of reading pamphlets well ok so what but her she's trying to set up the allocation as you know there was a strict number of hours and was not fulfilled but when you read what her allegation is to back that up it doesn't say that it just complains about the quality of the training what i was what i was just about to say was that when you the ninety cases when you consider the burden on the defendant to have to defend non specific allegations i like the court to know that it's also a burden on the government because even though the government has declined intervene in the case all teach him cases come down to what come down to burdening the government my first witnesses that i'm going to depose are going to be government people people who testify at trial it all comes down to that it's expensive for the government to do it it's expensive for the defendant to have to defend these cases it's a it's a tremendous burden and the government isn't even in the case the  as i said those are schedules there's no eyewitnesses that they weren't fulfilled there's no particular insight by this plaintiff as to how billing works how why why would that be reflected in an in it's just a general statement will employ says or how they get paid but in the hypothetical that if a guard post had gone unmanned she doesn't know anything or allege anything about how that would affect the company's billing to the government your honor i ask is it a is it a flat fee every month well the company the company can always make an adjustment to what it bills and it's not the same every month because the government the navy changes the post manning requirements all the time so it's not that and that information isn't known to the guards who are posted they just know what post they are assigned to so this plaintiff has no basis for knowledge about the accounting about how schedules are filled and about how claims are submitted  what she's alleging is poor performance and the the strong false claims case law on purpose or contract performance states that that is not a false claims act case is that that is nothing but a breach of contract claim and relator is don't have standing to bring breach of contract claims they all me and bring false claims act cases  the post manning issue has nothing to do with the certification it's a what do you call direct false claim allegation if you had a contract you did not perform certification cases are when you perform a contract and the requirements of the contract but in doing so you fail to comply with something else a law or regulation so that's not what the allegation with the post manning is here it might be the allegation with regard to that training and the paving employees pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement but it hasn't been laid out in that specificity either in terms of what why does the government where is there any allegation that the government cares about the company's compliance with its collective bargaining agreement it may care but there's no allegation of that so it's the trend is that you get one or two chances and when the judge goes so far as to tell you hey here's some advice about how to state a proper allocation and you ignore it you're going to get the case dismissed and and in this case i'd submit that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ending this thing after three versions of the complaint thank you graveyard shift south patrol had no guard manned when exhibit a required it and the complaint alleges that no one showed up the complaint alleges she has firsthand recollection of confirming a guard showed up the complaint alleges she interviewed other employees knowledge in addition on february fifth dayshift cell for troll also wasn't scheduled in the complaint alleges in fact was not manned but your honor that's going too far we're just required to play a short and plain statement and under rule in min we have to do with particularity we have to state the false claims we have to provide reasonable and dish upon which this court can draw a conclusion reapers done that she doesn't have to prove her case now she will later and in discovery will b c s i will know which day shifts they need to defend because she's obligated to tell them she will provide that to them but for her pleading she need only make allegations the court should reverse thank you honors thank you it's just argued is submitted we reverses