Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03440/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03440-3/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 JANUARY 13, 2006:

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

University of San Francisco (the “University”) and tentatively DENIES the University’s

motion for more definite statement as moot. 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 50 Filed 01/11/06 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 twenty minutes to address the following questions:

(1) In Paragraph 58 of Plaintiff’s complaint, she alleges that she was terminated on May 31,

2003. If allowed to amend her complaint, what allegations could Plaintiff allege to

demonstrate that the two-year statute of limitations has not yet run that would not be

inconsistent with her current allegations? See Reddy v. Litton Industries, Inc., 912 F.2d

291, 296-97 (1990) (leave to amend may only be given to plead “other facts consistent

with the challenged pleading”) (quoting Schreiber Dist. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co.,

806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)).

(2) What is the status of Plaintiff’s state-law action? Why is Plaintiff’s third claim for

retaliation not barred by the doctrine of res judicata?

(3) In Wang v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit held

that where there had been no public disclosure of the allegations or evidence surrounding

three of the four projects raised in the False Claims Act suit, the public disclosure bar

did not apply to the three previously undisclosed projects. Here, Plaintiff’s state-law

action only asserted allegations regarding the University’s alleged failure to comply with

requirements for providing reasonable accommodations. On what basis does the

University contend that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the University’s alleged false

certification concerning compliance with non-discriminatory admissions practices and 

alleged manipulation of student disability figures have been previously disclosed? On

what authority does the University rely?

(4) On what basis does Plaintiff contend it is undisputed that she voluntarily provided

information to the government regarding the alleged fraud disclosed in her state-law

action before filing this False Claims Act suit? If given leave to amend, could Plaintiff

allege such that she did voluntarily provide the information to the government before

filing this action?

(5) Plaintiff alleges the following three types of fraudulent acts: (1) false certifications

concerning compliance with non-discriminatory admissions practices; (2) false

certifications regarding compliance with requirements for providing reasonable

Case 3:04-cv-03440-JSW Document 50 Filed 01/11/06 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

accommodations as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (3)

manipulating student disability figures to obtain federal and state funds. If the Court

provides Plaintiff leave to amend to state a claim under the False Claims Act, could

Plaintiff allege with respect to each type of alleged fraud (1) the general time frame of

the alleged fraud; (2) what certification(s) the University submitted; (3) what the

certification(s) required the University to state; (4) what the University actually stated in

the certification(s); (5) to what agency or agencies the certification(s) were provided; (6)

to what funds were the certification(s) a prerequisite to receiving; and (7) who at the

University committed and/or was responsible for the alleged fraudulent acts?

(6) `1Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03440-JSW Document 50 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 3