Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03440/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03440-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. PATRICIA PAUL

WESTERFIELD,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-03440 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JULY 28, 2006:

The Court tentatively GRANTS the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant the

University of San Francisco (the “University”). The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda

of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in

those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument

or additional briefing. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:04-cv-03440-JSW Document 82 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Defendants argue that the order of dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment because

Westerfield did not appeal this order. In light of the fact that this order dismissed some,

but not all, of the claims between Westerfield and the University, and that the remainder

of this action is currently pending in state court, could Westerfield have filed an appeal

of this order? If not, what authority supports the University’s position that the dismissal

of Westerfield’s federal claims was a final judgment for purposes of res judicata?

(2) Westerfield argues that the Court may relax the pleading standards for her FCA claim

because the University has unique access to the requisite information regarding any

certifications. However, even if the Court could lessen the pleading requirements, how

does Westerfield’s request not conflict with her argument that she is an “original source”

of the University’s fraudulent conduct? See United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s

Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 560 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that claimant’s argument for a

relaxed pleading standard where the information concerning the alleged fraud is uniquely

within the defendant’s control conflicts with claimant’s allegation that he is an “original

source” of the alleged fraudulent conduct); see also United States ex rel. Karvelas v.

Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d 220, 230 (1st Cir. 2004) (noting that the definition

of “original source,” as someone who has direct and independent knowledge of the

information, excludes individuals who need information that is not in their possession to

adequately state their FCA claim).

(3) Specifically what federal grants or other funding does Westerfied contend the University

received that require certification of compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the

ADA as a condition to obtain such funds? 

(a) What if any support does Westerfield have for alleging such federal grants

require certification of compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA as a

prerequisite to obtain funding?

(b) When does Westerfield allege the University applied for and received such

funds? 

Case 3:04-cv-03440-JSW Document 82 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(4) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03440-JSW Document 82 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 3