government the job corps program was created to assist disadvantaged use to educate them train them and place them in jobs to overcome their getting disabilit in life not to line the pockets of fraudsters this case involves the establishment of the north texas job corps center in mckinney texas contract was awarded to company called we we have several other cases for example there was a rape case for one of the students filed in state court there is a wrongful termination case filed by one of the a separate claim against c o i this case involves the claims against belgian which we found out after the ruling of the district court we discovered the existence of the actual some contract between delta and c o i which had we had it would have been attached to the complaint and it would have added more details concerning the relationship between the two companies nevertheless we believe that the third amended complaint does satisfied the pleading standards as this court set forth in the grub's case we discussed grubb's it delays in our  brief the important section i believe from groves is that a plane is may survive by alleging particular details of a scheme to submit false claims paired with a reliable and is that lead to a strong inference that claims are actually submitted keeping in mind that the purpose of nine day is to avoid frivolous claims and to give defendants fair notice  this court went on to state that a complaint that includes both particular details of a scheme to present fraudulent bills and allegations making it likely that bills were actually submitted limits any fishing to a small pond that is either stopped or dead because he's made the situation dealing with gross was a somewhat unusual case where you had the doctor shows up at a new place of work and gets introduced into a culture of the fraud of fraud and allegation of fraud we don't have anything and seems to me like this and my other individuals and dog and scheme is anything comparable to that here where you where you can use the group's case on similar facts are you just saying it's a fairly loose standard now after gramps well there's a zero tolerance policy under the you know paragraph thirty nine of part of the complaint the d l l had specific policies and guidelines against of allowing  drug use in student violence on campus mr jamieson one of the relayed hers former police officer from chicago was hired to head of security he started reporting to his superior of drug use drug sales student rapes and he was specifically told in paragraph thirty seven and thirty eight of the complaint he was the citic lee told to be quiet not to submit those he knew under the regulations that these were supposed to be reported he also knew that under state law these were violations of law and they needed to be reported and he was instructed not in the supreme court held that if you make representations but you sort of leave out reporting something that's material that you're required to sit to supply that there of your implied lease certifying compliance with a material statutory regulatory requirement so we have alleged that there were with respected missions there were requirements that are outlined in the complaint that they ignored and admitted students we've a ledge to certain amounts about thirty six thousand dollars per student or student mended and on campus was paid and then we've alleged in security of missions of the education certification there are exhibits attached to the complaint which indicated people were being certified as having satisfied the educational standards but really haven't and then placement they get seventy nine thousand dollars approximately for student that's placed there were reports of placements examples attached to the complaint that were false these people did not actually receive those so what we have here is that diligent was working with c o i at the north texas job corps center they were doing certain things which if we had had the sun contract we would have been able to spell it out in  greater detail and that's the point of our motion to supplement the record pardon me and the sub contract is actually before the court as an exhibit to our motion t supplement but the fact is is that one of the relator is was heading up security one was involved in the education one was involved in the placement and they've all reported the allegations of the specific violations of law now the fact that the contract was would see a lawyer and not was belgian is not at all  problem because if you look at the relationship between them first of all we be legit they were working together we've alleged that they were dividing up responsibilities at the center and how they were dividing  the what's the case allison engine i believe was a supreme court case where there were false certifications by one company the contract was between the shipyards and the united states government and it is the supreme court said that it's not in the that you're collecting money from a government program you have to show with your allegations that you're making certifications that will be material to what is presented to the government i think we've met that standard with the way we've alleged the relationship and what was being done by  by each entity of the plane if this is from allison engine company in this prove that the defendant intended that the false record or statement is material to the government's decision or prove the false claims we've alleged how the failure to report the crimes and the use of drugs on the on the campus of meant that the government didn't know that these people should be expelled and we've alleged that they were paid a certain amount per student i think the conclusion from that is clear diligence to that is this type of reporting was essential they knew that they were required to make the reports of the violations of law and feathers the people were told to continue the teachers for example in the education process were told to assist the students who were failing in their tests and certify that they had passed when in fact they had not so we believe we've got the sufficient allegations post grows the fifth circuit as set for add here that we have recently suggested in the post gropes f c a context that additional discovery might be employed to permit plaintiffs to cure certain defects in a complaint citing to refuse to make even initial disclosures much less participate in discovery and that makes it extremely difficult for a plaintive to allege all the enter good details of here we're fortunate that we had relator is from different aspects of the north texas job corps center who focused on the different areas of responsibility some were employees of c e o live somewhere aspects of the discourse and we believe even the supreme court by the way it has reviewed the case law and believe in the escobar case the court recognized that you don't have to plead all the specific elements but that if instead you demonstrate that there are material missions  from what is is filed and that that can be sufficient so we we have in our complaint although it was filed the cases filed tolerance policy of the d l l and despite the obligation to submit as i or as significant incident reports that were required to be submitted whenever anything such as this occur so for that reason we believe that the pleading standards have been satisfied they please the court aaron street on behalf of the at the lead belgian plaintiffs complaining this case fails for two independent although overlapping reasons first of all the plaintiffs failed to allege any particular battle by an employee of belgium despite the fact that the plaintiffs were put on notice of that defect in their pleading in judge lindsay's first motion to dismiss ruling and despite the fact that they had four opportunities to plead this case second it as judge south of it's question suggests that the plaintiffs here have simply failed to plead the who what where when and how of a scheme to submit false claims to the united states with the particulary required in grubb's in this court's case law which was the basis of judge lindsay's first ruling on the motion to dismiss and a defect that the plaintiffs never corrected so turning to the failure to allege any unlawful act by a belgian employee that failure was particularly notable here because the relator comprised a group of employees of both supervised by ms martin the only employee who ever worked for dell janet any time during this time period mr jamieson would have known when ms martin worked for dell jen when she was promoted to c when the various acts occurred and yet after four opportunities he failed to allege that information what the plaintiffs did instead is what i would call mix and match pleading they played a three year period of alleged false claims and bad acts without giving any specific dates and they played a three year period in which various employees worked for various companies all of them worked for c e o i except for martin who worked during that three year period for unspecified times for dell gent and then c e o i and they hope and ask that the court will draw an inference that because these time periods match up or overlap that at some time of some alleged bad their best case after four claims and that it would be wasteful of judicial and party resources to allow yet another amendment here to allow the case to go forward turning to the second independent grounds for  the failure to meet the basic rule nine pleading standard as to a scheme the judge south likes question i think correctly indicated that grubbs was a fairly narrow exception to the general particularities standard in court in grubb's only true that exception with respect to pleading the contents of the false claim itself in the court said there i think the upshot of grabs is if the plaintiff cannot plead the specifics of a false claim specific context contents the specific dates the specific individuals involved in what it needs to do is plead particular in disha of a scheme that leads to the inference that false claims would have been submitted in the court  gave very clear guidance of what would satisfy those particular in disha first of all even if the plaintiff doesn't play to false claims submission with particularities grab says they need to plead some fraudulent act with particular area in grubb's it was that the recording of services that were not actually rendered the court said that's enough to infer that those false claims would have been submitted on those recorded services we don't have any analog to that here what we have is several general allegations of security admissions employment and placement and then we have date ranges matched up with those are those generalized allegations we don't have any particular date when any particular fraudulent act occurred or was done by a particular employee that could lead to the inference that a false claim was submitted that's what judge lindsey said in his ruling on the first motion to dismiss second and grubs the court said that the claim crossed the pleading threshold because there was a specifically pleaded meeting in which the scheme was hatched and laid out in great detail in their grub's three later pleaded a meeting with the doctors that were engaged in the scheme exactly how the scheme would work and inviting him to participate in the scheme and he played the date that that occurred even played at the location those so he played with great particulary the scheme and then he gave specific dated individualized instances of when the scheme was carried out we don't have any of that here what we have is what i would call mass pleading at least on three axes first of all you have asked leading us to dates as i mentioned they give broad date ranges they never identify a date that any particular fraudulent act was submitted or or even conceived undertaken second of all they have mass pleading as to people when you look at the group when you look at the four categories that are alleged they have a list of people they say ex a e all participated in this scheme to do false admissions or false placement they don't identify the specific role of any particular individual in the scheme much less who those individuals work for at that particular time and finally and i think maybe most notably you have a mass pleading as to the nature of the false claims so grab says you need to be able to plead some particular fraudulent act that would lead to a false claim being submitted what you have here is over x year period of time eighty percent of these claims were false sixty percent of these claims were false with no particular examples of the false claims being submitted so judge lindsey identified all of this in his initial opinion and we quoted the key parts of that opinion on page twenty four of our apple e's brief the plaintiffs did nothing to correct that in their later amendments to their complaint and so even independent of the failure to plead any act by a belgian employee the failure to plead the scheme overall consistent with rule nine would require an affirmative let me turn to the security allegations briefly that one for size so heavily by my friend on the other side that was symptomatic of all of what i've just discussed there was a date range pleated in which  security violations allegedly occurred or were not reported no specific instance not a single time when there's any evidence pleaded that a particular instance was not reported or was ordered to be suppressed have an implied certification theory but you need to have a very specific pleading of how the failure to the failure of the regulation or the violation would have led to submission of a false claim and if you look at what happened here with respect to security the only allegations that have anything to do with ms martin do not have to do with reporting to the department of labor the reporting to the department of labor is allegedly done by m amaranth who is not identified as a diligent employee all you have with ms martin is allegedly not reporting to the police and there's no linking of that to the department of labor but even more fundamental than that is that  was not alleged to have been a dell gen employee during the date range that had to do with security and summary belgium is much like the hospital in the grub's case and it's much like the doctors that were not allowed to be sued in the grub's case there's no specific allegations as to delegate and there's just a mass pleading a lumping in a belgian with with individuals who allegedly committed bad acts and finally i guess i would point out that the plaintiffs will have their day in court here as my friend on the other side indicated there is a separate case pending in the northern district texas under the false claims act against c o i the company that under their own allegations employed all of the bad actors so they can move forward that case that's a separate case there's no reason for presented or conspire to prepare represent a false claim mr jamieson who was a belgian employee at the time in question he was in charge of security he was instructed prepared as complain we didn't know the dates we've subsequently taken her deposition in the rape case and and we have those dates and down that unfortunately we didn't have any discovery but we knew she was with both during that entire period of time mr jamieson was repeatedly instructed not to report to the police department not to report these incidents of drug use and student violence that under escobar is immaterial because as we've alleged paragraph thirty nine of the complaint there is a requirement that you report these instances  which would lead to automatic expulsion well every time someone is expelled that's money lost therefore i believe that's a specific example i go back to the need for some discover some modicum of discovery i believe we have alleged well for one thing there is a conspiracy alleged we have alleged to delegate and see why we're engaged in the conspiracy we have alleged that they w together operating in the north texas job or center we have alleged that c o y knew that these incidents were occurring and was making them reports and was getting but they had subcontracted with village inn to furnish for example security so security is supposed to report drug violence and rapes they were told not to do it and this was material it was something under allison engine of for example we've we've alleged sufficiently that there was knowledge that this needed to be reported and there was specific instructions that it not be reported and that i believe satisfies the requirement because we were demonstrating th the there was a duty to make those reports and there was an affirmative decision on numerous occasions would seem to me certainly alleged as to see how was belgians doing what l we have alleged in our pleadings the diligence knew of the it's called the p r h the policy handbook and it they knew of the regulations and so they know  regulations they failed to make the reports and they participate in the reports that were false and then they assist materially they assisted and we have reliable indications that falls for reports were submitted to the united states government and then we were cut off and not allowed any discovery