# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nos . 12 -2 98 4, 1 2- 38 94

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, ex rel Fred ric k Newe ll

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ci ty of St . Pau l, Mi nn es ot a

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 13 Fil ed : Au gu st 28 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Fred ric k Newel l br ou gh t th is act io n un d e r t h e F a ls e Cl ai m s Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 37 29 -3 73 3 (“ FCA”) , on be ha lf o f th e Uni te d S ta te s ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of St . Pau l.

Newel l al le ge d th at
, fro m 20 03 th ro ug h 20 09

, th e Ci ty ob ta in ed gr an ts fro m th e U.S. Dep art m en t of Hou si ng an d Urb an Dev el op m en t (“ HUD”) by fal se ly cert ifyin g

co m pl ia nc e wit h Sect io n 3 of th e Hou si ng an d Urb an Dev el op m en t Act of 19 68 an dit s ap pl ic ab le r e g u l at io ns

. See 12 U.S.C. § 17 01 u; 24 C.F.R. § 13 5 (co ll ect iv el y

“ Sect io n 3” ). The go ve rn m en t de cl in ed to in te rv en e in Newel l’s “ qu i ta m ” act io n. 1

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Ci ty’ s m ot io n to di sm is s, co nc lu di ng th e co ur t la ck ed 2

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on b e c a u s e Newel l was no t an or ig in al so ur ce of frau d

al le ga ti on s th at were ba se d on pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d in fo rm at io n. The co ur t la te r de ni ed

Newel l’s m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m t h e ju d g men t un de r Ru le 60 (b ). Newel l ap pe al ed

bo th ord ers . W e co ns ol id at ed th e ap pe al s an d n ow af fir m

.

I. Publ ic Dis cl os ure B ar

The qu i ta m pr ov is io ns of th e FCA, en act ed in 18 63 to co m ba t frau d by Ci vi l

W ar de fen se co nt ract or s, au th or iz e pr iv at e ci ti zen s (cal le d rel at or s) to su e on be ha lf

of th e go ve rn m en t an d, as a bo un ty, sh are in an y reco ve ry

. The pu bl ic di sc lo su re ba r

was pa rt of th e 19 86 FCA am en dm en ts “ in te nd ed to en co ur ag e pr iv at e en fo rcem en t

su it s by le gi ti m at e whi st le bl owe rs whi le ba rri ng su it s by op po rtu ni st ic q u i ta m pl ai nt iff s who ba se th ei r cl ai m s on m a t t ers th at ha ve be en pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d by

ot he rs .” Hay s v . Hoffm an , 32 5 F .3d 98 2, 9 87 (8t h C ir.) , cert . den ie d, 5 40 U.S. 87 7 (2 00 3)

. The st at ut or y ba r in effe ct in 20 09

, whe n Newel l fil ed th is act io n, pr ov id ed :

(A) No co ur t sh al l h a v e juri sd ic ti on ov er an act io n un de r th is se ct io n ba se d up on th e pu bl ic di sc lo su re of a l l eg at io ns or tra ns act io ns in a cri m in al

, ci vi l, or ad m in is tra ti v e h eari ng , in a co ng res si on al

, ad m in is tra ti ve , or G ove rn m ent Acco un ti ng Offi ce rep or t, he ari ng , au di t,

or in ve st ig at io n, or fro m th e ne ws m ed ia

, un le ss th e act io n is br ou gh t by th e Att or ne y Gen eral or th e p e r s on br in gi ng th e act io n is an or ig in al

so ur ce o f th e in fo rm at io n.

See Verm on t Age nc y of Natu ral Res

. v. Uni te d St at es ex rel

. St ev en s, 52 9 U.S. 1
76 5, 7 69 n.1 (20 00 ).

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e fo r th e 2
Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-31 U.S.C. § 37 30 (e)( 4) (A). W he n th is ba r ap pl ie s, th e di st ric t c o u r t l a ck s su bjec t

m at te r juri sd ic ti on to affo rd th e re l a t or FCA rel ie f. Ro ck well In t’l Co rp

. v. Uni te d

St at es , 54 9 U.S. 4 57 , 46 7- 70 (20 07 ). 3

Newel l is th e own er of th ree co ns tru ct io n co m pa ni es th at ha ve un su cces sf ul ly

at te m pt ed to se cu re wor k on HUD-fun de d pr ojec ts in th e Ci ty. In Apr il 20 08

, he fil ed

an ad m in is tra ti ve co m

pl ai nt wit h HUD al le gi ng th at th e Ci ty was vi ol at in g Sect io n
3 a n d f al se ly cert ifyin g co m

pl ia nc e to ob ta in HUD gr an ts

. In May 20 09

, wit h t h a t

co m pl ai nt pe nd in g, Newel l br ou gh t th is qu i ta m act i o n u n d e r th e FCA. The

co m pl ai nt was se al ed whi le th e go ve rn m en t in ve st ig at ed th e al le ga ti on s an d de ci de d

whe th er to in te rv en e. See 31 U.S.C. § 37 30 (b )(2 ). In th e m ean ti m e, HUD co nd uc te d

a Sec ti on 3 co m

pl ia nc e au di t an d d et erm in ed th at th e Ci ty had vi ol at ed Sect io n 3

.

In Feb ru ary 20 10

, HUD an d th e Ci t y e n t e red in to a Vol un ta ry Co m pl ia nc e Agr eem en t th at “ fu ll y an d fin al ly” res ol ve d Newell’ s ad m ini str at ive co m

pla int but no t
th e Ci ty’ s po te nt ia l FCA li ab il it y

. In Feb ru ary 20 12

, th e go ve rn m en t de cl in ed to
in te rv en e in th e qu i ta m act io n. Newel l th en fil ed an am en de d co m pl ai nt
, an d t h e Ci ty m ov ed to di sm is s un de r Ru le 12 (b )(1 ), co nt en di ng th at th e pu bl ic di sc lo su re ba r

st rip pe d th e co ur t of juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Newel l’s frau d al le ga ti on s. The di st ric t 4

Sect io n 37 30 (e)( 4) (A) was am en de d in 20 10

. It n o w pr ov id es th at
, if th e 3

pu bl ic di sc lo su re ba r ap pl ie s: “ The co ur t sh al l di sm is s an act io n or cl ai m un de r th is

se ct io n, un le ss op po s e d b y t h e Gov ern m en t.” The pa rti es ag ree th at th is cas e is

go ve rn ed by the st at ut e in effe ct when th e act io n was fil ed

. See Graha m Cn ty. So il & W at er Co ns erv

. Dis t. v. Uni te d St at es ex rel

. W il so n, 13 0 S. Ct

. 1 3 9 6, 14 00 n.1 (2 01 0)

.
The Ci ty al so so ug ht di sm issal unde r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), co nt en di ng th at it s al le ge d 4

no n- co m pl ia nc e wit h Sect io n 3 do es no t gi ve ris e to FCA li ab il it y as a m at te r of la w. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er th is is su e; be cau se we ag ree th e c o u r t la ck ed

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , nei th er d o we. Se e g en eral ly U ni te d S ta te s ex rel . Vi gi l v. Nel ne t, In c., 63 9 F .3d 79 1, 7 95 -9 6 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

-3

-co ur t gr an te d th e Ci ty’ s m ot io n to di sm is s, co n c l u d i n g th at Newel l’s FCA cl ai m s

were ba se d up on “ al le ga ti on s or tra ns act io ns ” th at were pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d an d he

do es no t qu al ify as an “ or ig in al s o u r c e of th e in fo rm at io n.” Newel l ap pe al s bo th

ru li ng s. As th e pa rty in vo ki ng fed eral juri sd ic ti on , he ha s th e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th e co ur t’s FC A juri sd ic ti on . See Hays, 32 5 F .3d at 9 87

.

A. Pu bl ic Dis cl os ur e. Co n g res s en act ed Sect io n 3 to “ en su re th at th e

em pl oym en t an d ot he r eco no m ic op po rtu ni ti es ge ne rat ed by Fed eral f i na nc ia l

as si st an ce fo r ho us in g an d co m m un it y d e v e l o pm en t pr og ram s sh al l, to th e gr eat es t

ex te nt feas ib le

, be di rect ed to ward lo w- an d ve ry lo w-in co m e pe rs on s, pa rti cu la rly

th os e who are reci pi en ts of go ve rn m en t as si st an ce fo r ho us in g .” 12 U.S.C. § 17 01 u( b)

. To th at en d, HUD re g u l a t i o ns req ui re th at Sect io n 3 gr an t reci pi en ts

pr ov id e, “ to th e gr eat es t ex te nt feas ib le ,” tra in in g an d em pl oym en t op po rtu ni ti es fo r lo w-in co m e p ers on s an d for bu si ne ss es em pl oyin g su ch pe rs on s in co nn ect io n with

pr ojec ts fu nd ed by HUD co m m un it y de ve lo pm en t gran ts

. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 13 5.1

- 13 5.9 2. Gran t ap pl ic an ts m us t cert ify th at th ey w i l l c o m pl y wit h Sect io n 3

req ui rem en ts , see 24 C.F.R. § 13 5.9 (a), an d gr an te es m us t su bm it an nu al rep or ts to
HUD do cu m en ti ng co m

pl ia nc e, se e 2 4 C .F.R. § 1 35 .90

.

Newel l’s FCA frau d cl ai m is st rai gh tfo rward : Fro m 20 03 th ro ug h 20 09

, he

al le ge s, the Ci ty rece iv ed $6 2 m il li on in HUD gr an ts by cert ifyin g com pl ia nc e wit h

Sect io n 3 req ui rem en ts ; du rin g th os e y ears , th e Ci ty kn owi ng ly fai le d to co m pl y wit h

th os e req ui rem en ts ; th eref or e, th e Ci ty’ s cert ifi cat io ns w er e know ing ly fa lse, en ti tl in g th e go ve rn m en t to tre bl e da m ag es an d Newel l to hi s rel at or ’s s h a r e

. The juri sd ic ti on al ba r to an FCA cl ai m ari se s “ on ly whe n th e es se nt ia l el em en ts

co m pr is in g th e frau du le n t t r a ns act io n ha ve be en pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d so as to rai se a

reas on ab le in fere nc e of frau d.” Uni te d St at es ex rel . Hix so n v. Heal th Mg m t. Sy s.,
In c., 61 3 F.3 d 11 86

, 11 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. St at ed di ffer en tl y , to
rai se th e ba r, pu bl ic di sc lo su res m us t reve al “ bo th th e tru e st at e of fact s an d th at th e de fen da nt rep res en te d t he fact s to be so m et hi ng ot he r th an wha t t he y were.” M in n.

-4

-Ass ’n of Nur se A n e st he ti st s v. All in a Heal th Sy s. Co rp ., 27 6 F.3 d 10 32

, 10 44 (8 th

Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 53 7 U.S. 94 4 (2 00 2)

. Thu s, th e is su e is whe th er bo th th e tru e st at e of fact s (th e Ci ty’ s no n- co m pl ia n ce) an d th e m is rep res en ta ti on of fact s (th e Ci ty

cert ifyin g co m

pl ia nc e t o H UD) were pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 3 73 0( e)(4 ) be fo re Newel l b ro ug ht hi s qu i t am act io n i n M ay 20 09

.

In 20 05

, Newel l ob ta in ed an in te rn al m em or an du m by Edwar d M c D on al d, a fo rm er Ci ty em

pl oyee, th at in cl ud ed de ta il ed al le ga ti on s of th e Ci ty’ s no nc om pl ia nc e wit h Sect io n 3 req u i r e ment s. Newel l pu bl ic iz ed th e McDo na ld m em or an du m at a Ci ty Co un ci l he ari ng in Aug us t 20 05

, read in g th e rel ev an t Sect io n 3 po rti on s in to th e

reco rd

. Newel l al so joi ne d a ci vi l rig ht s la wsu it ag ai ns t th e Ci ty i n 20 06 du rin g whi ch th e en ti re McDo na ld m em or an du m was pu bl ic ly fil ed

. See Tho m as v. Ci ty of

Sai nt Pau l, D. Mi nn

. Ci v. No. 06 -2 86 0, Dkt

. No. 33 -1

. In Ju ne 20 06

, Newel l su ed th e Ci ty in fed eral co ur t, al le gi ng nu m er o us vi ol at io ns of Sect io n 3 an d se ek in g

co m pe ns at or y an d in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. He ob ta in ed do cu m en ts r e l a t i n g to th e Ci ty’ s
Sect io n 3 co m

pl ia nc e fro m HUD by fil in g Free do m of I n f o r mati on Act (“ FOIA”)

req ue st s an d s ub m it te d t he FOIA req ue st s as ev id en ce o f th e Ci ty’ s n on co m pl ia nc e

to su pp or t h is m ot io n for a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n i n t ha t ac ti on . In Fe br ua ry 20 07

, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Newel l’s m ot io n an d di sm is se d th e su it fo r la ck of st an di ng be cau se he ha d no t su ffer ed in jury tra ceab le to th e Ci ty. See Nail s Co ns t. Co

. v. Ci ty
of Sai nt Pau l, Ci v. No. 06 -2 65 7, 20 07 W L 42 31 87

, at *2 -3 (D. Mi nn

. Feb

. 6, 20 07 ).

Newel l’s al le ga ti on s of ch ro ni c Sect io n 3 no nc om pl ia nc e in th e Nail s co m

pl ai nt were

ne arl y id en ti cal to th os e in hi s 2 0 0 9 q u i ta m co m pl ai nt

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t th at Newel l’s al le ga ti on s of Sect io n 3 no n- co m pl ia nc e were pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d

in th e McDo na ld m em or an du m an d th e Nail s li ti ga ti on (am on g ot he r pu bl ic so ur ces of th at in fo rm at io n)

.

N e w e l l ’s al le ga ti on th at th e Ci ty’ s fal se ly cert ifi ed Sect io n 3 co m pl ia nc e i n

ap pl y in g fo r an d ob ta in in g HUD gr an ts was pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d whe n he ob ta in ed th e Ci ty’ s Sect io n 3 co m

pl ia nc e do cu m en ts fro m HUD un de r FOIA. See S c h in dl er

-5

-El e v a t o r Co rp

. v. Uni te d St at es ex rel

. Kirk

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 85

, 18 96 (2 01 1) (ag en c y

res po ns es to FOIA req ue st s by a rel at or are “ rep or ts wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e pu bl ic

di sc lo su re ba r ” )

. I n a dd it io n, whi le pu bl ic iz in g th e McDo na ld m em or an du m at a

pu bl ic C i t y Co un ci l he ari ng in 20 05

, Newel l as se rte d th at th e Mayor of St

. Pau l

cert ifi ed “ th at he wou ld fu lfi ll th e req ui rem en ts of th e Sect i o n 3, y et Sect io n 3 is ig no red .” Acco rd in gl y , bo th th e tru e st at e of fact s an d th e al le ge d m is rep res en ta ti on of fact s wer e p ub li cl y

di sc lo se d b efo re Newel l fi le d h is qu i t am act io n.

On ap pe al

, Newel l vi rtu al ly co nc ed es th es e pu bl ic di sc lo su res bu t arg ue s th at
hi s fr au d al le ga ti on s were no t “ ba se d up on ” th es e so ur ces be cau se he was a ware o f

the Ci ty’ s no nc om

pl ia nc e be fo re th e McDo na ld m em or an du m w as re le as ed

, the FO IA

r e s p on se s “ on ly fu rth ered [h is ] ex is ti ng in de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge of th e Ci ty’s

vi ol at io ns ,” an d he di d no t as se rt a cl ai m o f f r a u d in th e Nail s li ti ga ti on

. The se

arg um en ts are wit ho ut m eri t be cau se th ey co nf la te di st in ct § 37 30 (e)( 4) is su es

. A qu i

ta m act io n is “ ba se d up on ” pu bl ic di sc lo su res whe n th e al le ga ti on s in th e act io n an d

th os e in th e pu bl ic di sc lo su res are su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar, reg ard le ss of whe th er th e rel at or m ay ha ve ha d in de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge of th e frau d. See Nurs e Ane st he ti st s,
27 6 F.3 d at 10 45 -4 7; Glas er v. W ou nd Care Co ns ul ta nt s, In c. 57 0 F.3 d 90 7, 91 5 (7 th

Ci r. 20 09 ) (jo i n i n g th e “ m ajor it y vi ew” of ei gh t ot he r ci rcu it s)

. W he th er Newel l

ob ta in ed th e pu b l i cl y di sc lo se d in fo rm at io n in de pe nd en t of th e McDo na ld

m em or an du m an d th e FOIA res po ns es go es to whe th er he was an or ig in al so ur ce, no t

to whet he r hi s qu i t am cla im s wer e b as ed up on th at in fo rm at io n.

B. Ori g i na l So ur ce. Newel l arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng he

was no t an or ig in al so ur ce of th e in fo rm at io n on whi ch hi s frau d al l e ga ti on s were ba se d. An “ or ig in al so ur ce” is “ an in di v i d u al who ha s di rect an d in de pe nd en t
kn owl e d g e o f th e in fo rm at io n.” § 37 30 (e)( 4) (B); se e Hay s, 32 5 F.3 d at 99 0. Tha t

mea ns di rect an d in de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge of th e in fo rm at io n on whi ch hi s fr au d

all eg ati on s are ba se d, no t th e in fo rm at io n on whi ch th e pu bl ic ly -d is cl os ed al le gat ion s

were ba se d. Ro ck well

, 54 9 U.S. at 47 0- 71

. “ In de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge ” is “ kn owl ed ge

-6

-no t de riv ed fro m th e pu bl ic di s cl os ur e.” Nur se Ane st he ti st s, 27 6 F.3 d at 10 48

.

“ Dire ct kn owl ed ge ” is fir st -h an d kn ow le dg e; “ a pe rs on who ob ta in s se co nd ha nd

in fo rm at io n from an in di vi du al who ha s d ire ct kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d frau d do es

no t hi m se lf po ss es s di rect kn owl ed ge an d th eref or e is no t an or ig in al so ur ce un de r th e [FCA].” Uni te d St at es ex rel . B art h v. Ri dg ed al e Elec ., In c., 44 F.3d 69 9, 70 3 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ); se e In re Natu ral Gas Ro y al ti es , 56 2 F.3 d 10 32

, 10 45 (1 0t h Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed , 55 8 U.S. 8 80 (20 09 ).

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Newel l fai le d to es ta bl is h he ha d di rect an d

in de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge of th e in fo rm at io n un de rlyin g hi s frau d al le ga ti on s. Newel l,

a pr iv at e ci ti zen , ob vi o u s l y h a d no di rect or in de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge of th e Ci ty’ s al le ge d “m i s r ep res en ta ti on of fact s” -- th at is

, th e fal se cert ifi cat io ns of Sect io n 3

co m pl ia nc e an d fai lu res to fil e req ui red Sect io n 3 an nu al rep or ts

. Tho se al le ga ti on s

were ba se d on pu bl ic ly-di sc lo se d in fo rm at io n, m os t li ke ly HUD’ s FOIA res po ns es

.

A rel at or do es no t hav e to ha ve pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of al l el em en ts of a fal se cl ai m cau se of a c t i o n. “ If th e rel at or ha s di rect kn owl ed ge of th e tru e st at e of th e fact s, [h e] can be an or ig in al so ur ce ev e n th ou gh [h is ] kn owl ed ge of th e

m is rep res en ta t i o n i s n o t fir st -h an d.” Nur se Ane st he ti st s, 27 6 F.3 d at 10 50

. Bu t
Newel l’s frau d al le ga ti on s are no ne th el es s ba rred be cau se he fai le d to es ta bl is h di rect

an d in de pe nd en t kn owl ed ge of th e “ tru e st at e of th e fact s” -- th at is

, th e Ci ty’ s al le ge d

ch ro ni c no nc om

pl ia nc e wit h Sect io n 3 req ui rem en ts

. Newel l’s de cl arat io n in

op po si ti on to th e Ci ty’ s m ot io n to di sm is s de m on st r a te d th at hi s kn owl ed ge of th e Ci ty’ s no nc om

pl ia nc e, in pa rti cu la r it s fai lu re to co ll ect an d m ai nt ai n Sect io n 3 da ta
,

was de riv ed al m os t en ti rel y fro m cu rren t an d fo rm er Ci ty em pl oyees. Ty

ro ne Terri ll

an d Tom San ch ez in fo rm ed Newel l th at th e Ci ty di d no t co ll ect or m ai nt ai n Sect io n
3 co m pl ia nc e da ta

. The McDo na ld m em or an du m la m en te d th e Ci ty’ s la ck of Sect io n
3 pr oc ed ur es an d it s fai lu re to pl ace “ recr ui te d em pl oyees” on pr ojec ts fu nd ed by

Sect io n 3 -co ve red gra nt s.

-7

-Newel l po in ts to hi s at te nd an ce at a Ju ne 20 00 m eet in g co nc ern in g th e Ci ty’ s

HUD-fun de d le ad -ab at em en t pr ojec ts as ev id en ce th at he wit ne ss ed th e al le ge d

no nc om pl ia nc e fir st -h an d. At th at m eet in g, Ci ty rep res en ta ti ve s in fo rm ed hi m th at
th e Ci ty “ wou ld no t be ad di ng ad di ti on al c o n t r a c t o rs to th ei r ex is ti ng rem od el in g

co nt ract or li st ” an d th at “ th e Ci ty wou ld us e HUD fun ds th at it rece iv ed to tra in th e Ci ty’ s ex is ti ng rem od el in g co nt ract or s.” Bu t th e Ci ty’ s fai lu re to ad d Newel l to it s li st of co nt ract or s in Ju n e 20 00 do es no t es ta bl is h ev en a si ng le in st an ce of

no nc om pl ia n c e w i th Sect io n 3, m uc h le ss th e so rt of ch ro ni c no nc om pl ia nc e th at

wou ld pe rm it an in fere nc e th at th e Ci ty’ s ann ua l cert ifi cat io ns th at it wou ld co m pl y

were kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly fal se

. Acco rd Vig il

, 63 9 F.3 d a t 7 9 5

. Onl y wit h th e in fo rm at io n Newel l la te r le arn ed fro m Ci ty em pl oyees an d f

r om ot he r pu bl ic ly

di sc lo se d so ur ces co ul d he cred i b l y al le ge an act io na bl e FCA vi ol at io n. Newel l’s

pr ev io us ex pe rie nc e in at te m pt in g to se cu re Sect io n 3- co ve red wor k an d hi s in te res t
in th e su bjec t m at te r si m

pl y do no t qu al ify hi m as an or ig in al so ur ce fo r pu rp os es of

th e pu bl ic di sc lo su re ba r. See In re Natu ral Gas Ro ya l t i e s , 56 2 F.3 d at 10 45 (“ The

fact th at a rel at or h a s b a c k gr ou nd in fo rm at io n or un iq ue ex pe rti se al lo win g hi m to

un de rs ta nd th e si gn ifi can ce of pu bl ic ly di sc lo se d al le ga ti on s an d tra ns act io ns is al so in su ffi ci en t.”) ; ac co rd Hay s, 3 25 F.3d at 9 90 (reject in g a cat al y st th eo ry ).

Fo r th e ab ov e st a te d reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th at it

la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r 31 U.S.C. § 3 73 0( e)(4 ).

II . The Rul e 6 0( b) I ss ue

Mo re th an two m on th s aft er th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed it s Mem or an du m Opi ni on

an d Ord er di sm is si ng th e qu i ta m act io n fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on , whi le th at ru li ng was

pe nd in g on ap pe al

, Newel l fil ed a m ot io n fo r Ru le 60 (b ) rel i e f fro m th e fin al jud gm en t, al le gi ng th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d de cl in ed to in te rv en e be cau se of a se cret

“ gl ob al se tt le m en t” be twee n th e Dep art m en t of Ju st ic e an d th e Ci ty in whi ch hi s qu i

ta m act io n was us ed as a ba rg ai ni ng ch ip to in du ce t he Cit y no t t o ta ke an act io n in

-8

-an un rel at ed Fai r Hou si ng Act li ti ga ti on th at co ul d jeop ard iz e th e go ve rn m en t’s

reco ve ry of $7 50 m il li on in va rio us un rel at ed la wsu it s. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e 5

m ot io n wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. On ap pe al

, ab an do ni ng ot he r th eo rie s arg ue d

to th e di st ric t co ur t, Newel l arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g
Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f be cau se th e se cret se tt le m en t, un li ke a di sc ret io na ry de ci si on no t to
in te rv en e in a qu i ta m act io n, en ab le d th e go ve rn m en t to ob ta in an “ al te rn at e rem ed y ”

th at en ti tl es hi m to a sh are of th e se tt le m en t pr oc eed s un de r § 37 30 (c)( 5) of th e FCA.

See Jo ne s v. Swan so n, 51 2 F.3 d 10 45

, 10 49 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). At

a m in im um , he ur ge s us to rem an d fo r di sc ov ery co nc ern in g th e na tu re an d ex te nt of

th e ag reem en t b et ween th e g ov ern m en t an d t he Cit y

.

W e reject th is no ve l co nt en ti on be cau se no ne of Newel l’s al le ga t i o ns

co nc ern in g a se cret ag reem en t be twee n th e go ve rn m en t an d th e Ci ty ha d an y th in g to
do wit h th e b as is for th e d is tri ct co ur t’s en try of i ts ad ve rs e fi na l jud gm en t -- th at it

la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er Newel l’s qu i ta m act io n be cau se of th e pu bl ic

di sc lo su re ba r. Afte r th e go ve rn m e n t d e c l i n ed to in te rv en e, Newel l co nt in ue d to
li ti ga te hi s qu i t am cla im s. Had he pre va il ed , he wo ul d hav e be en award ed a la rg er

pe rcen ta ge of th e reco ve ry th an if th e go ve rn m en t ha d in t e r v e n e d

. See 31 U.S.C. § 3 73 0( d) (2 ); R ob ert s v . Accen tu re, LLP, 70 7 F .3d 10 11 , 10 15 -1 6 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ).

A di st ric t co ur t do es no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n whe n th e

m ov in g pa rty fa il s to sh ow t ha t t he all eg ed m is rep res en ta ti on s o r ne wly d is co ve red

ev idenc e “ w ou ld pr ob ab ly pr od uc e a di ffer en t res ul t.” McC or m ack v. Ci ti ba nk

, N.A.,

10 0 F .3d 53 2, 5 42 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6) (qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

W e al so reject Newel l’s co nt en ti on th at Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f is warra nt ed be cau se th e g ov ern m en t o bt ai ne d a n “ al te rn at e rem ed y .” Sect io n 3 73 0( c)(5 ) pr ov id es :

The m ot io n di d no t s p e c i f y t h e su bp art (s ) of Ru le 60 (b ) on whi ch Newel l 5 rel i e d

. On ap pe al

, he ci te s Ru le 60 (b )(2 ), (3 ), an d (6 ), whi ch gr an t di sc ret io n to rel ie ve a pa rty fro m a fin al jud gm en t on gr ou nd s of ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce, frau d

or m is co nd uc t b y

an op po si ng pa rty, or “ an y ot he r rea so n t ha t ju st ifi es rel ie f.”

-9

-[T]he Gov ern m en t may e l e c t to pu rs ue it s cl ai m th ro ug h an y al te rn at e

rem ed y av ai la bl e to t h e Gov ern m en t, in cl ud in g an y ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in g to de te rm i n e a ci vi l m on ey pe na lt y

. If an y su ch al te rn at e

rem ed y is pu rs ue d in an ot he r pr oc eed in g, th e pe rs on in it ia ti ng th e act io n sh al l ha ve th e sa m e rig ht s in su ch pr oc eed in g as su ch pe rs on wou ld ha ve ha d i f th e act io n h ad co nt in ue d u nd er t hi s s ect io n.

In th is cas e, th e go ve rn m en t di d no t “ el ect to pu rs ue ” th e FCA cl ai m s Newel l as se rte d

ag ai ns t th e Ci ty in “ an ot he r pr oc eed in g.” Newel l’s Ru le 60 (b ) co nt en ti on is th at th e

go ve rn m en t us ed th e Ci ty’ s po te nt ia l tre bl e da m ag e ex po su re in hi s qu i ta m act io n as le ve rag e to pe rs ua de th e Ci ty to t ak e act io n th at en ab le d th e g ov ern m en t t o re co ve r far m or e in un rel at ed

, no n- FCA cas es

. As de fin ed in § 37 30 (c)( 5)

, th e te rm “ al te rn at e

rem ed y ” do es no t in cl ud e th e go ve rn m en t’s se tt le m en t of un rel at ed cl ai m s ag ai ns t

un rel at e d p a rti es in un rel at ed la wsu it s. Acco rd Uni te d St at es ex rel

. LaCo rte v.
W ag ne r, 18 5 F.3 d 18 8, 19 2 (4 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ To th e ex te nt th es e [s et tl ed ] cl ai m s are

un rel at ed to [rel at or s’] earl ie r act io n, th ey ha ve no rig ht s b ecau se th ey are n ot bo na fid e rel at or s wi th res pe ct to th os e cl ai m s.”)

.

Mo reo ve r, even if

th e go ve rn m en t pu rs ue d an d ob ta in ed an “ al te rn at e rem ed y ,”

Newel l wou ld no t be en ti tl ed to a sh are of th at rem ed y be cau se hi s FCA cl ai m s were

su bjec t to di sm is sa l un d e r th e pu bl ic di sc lo su re ba r. As th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of § 37 30 (c)( 5) m ak es cle ar, i f th e go ve rn m en t pu rs ue s an alt ern at e rem ed y in an ot he r

pr oc eed in g, th e qu i ta m rel at or ha s th e “ sa m e rig ht s” in th at pr oc eed in g as he wou ld

ha ve if th e act io n ha d co nt in ue d un de r th e FCA. Here, as Newe l l ’s FCA cl ai m is juri sd ic ti on al ly ba rred

, he “ m ay no t rece iv e an y sh are of th e pr oc eed s at tri bu ta bl e to
th at cl ai m .” Uni te d St at es ex rel

. Mer en a v. Sm it hKl in e Bee ch am Co rp ., 20 5 F.3 d 97

, 10 6 (3 d Ci r. 20 00 ); se e Uni te d St at es ex rel

. Adr ia n v. Reg en ts of Uni v. of Cal

., 33 7
Fed

. App ’x 37 9, 38 1 (5 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (aff irming th e de ni al of Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f fo r th is

reas on ). Newel l arg ue s th at Mer en a -- a cas e in whi ch th e go ve rn m en t in te rv en ed an d

se tt le d th e FCA cl ai m -- is di st in gu is ha bl e be cau se , he re, th e go ve rn m en t ob ta in ed th e al le ge d al te rn at e rem ed y be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d hi s qu i ta m cl ai m s un de r

-1 0-th e pu bl ic di sc lo su re ba r. W e co nc lu de it is im m at eri al th at th e go ve rn m en t ob ta in ed

an al te rn at e rem ed y an d de cl in ed to in te rv en e be fo re th e Ci t y r a i s ed th e pu bl ic

di sc lo su re ba r. Newel l as su m es t h a t if th e go ve rn m en t reco ve rs an y th in g, whe th er aft er in te rv en ti on or by al te rn at e rem ed y, t he rel at or ge ts a sh are. Tha t is no t

ne ces sa ril y tru e, as in so m e cas es th e go ve rn m en t se tt le s an d th en su es th e rel at or to
bl oc k h is reco ve ry

. Cf. Ro ck well

, 54 9 U.S. at 47 8; Uni te d St at es ex rel

. Po te et v. Med tro ni c, In c., 55 2 F.3 d 50 3, 51 6- 19 (6 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Newel l ci te s no cas e in whi ch

a rel at or su bjec t to th e pu bl ic di sc lo su re ba r was no ne th el es s en ti tl ed to a sh are of th e

go ve rn m en t’s “ al te rn ate re m ed y

. ” U nit ed St at es ex rel

. Bl ed so e v. Co m m un it y Heal th Sy s., In c., 34 2 F.3 d 63 4, 64 7- 51 (6 th Ci r. 20 03 ), on whi ch Newel l pr in ci pa ll y rel ie s, di d n ot co ns id er t hi s i ss ue

.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in

de nyin g Newel l’s Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n. W e affi rm th e ju d g men t of th e di st ric t co ur t

an d it s Mem or an du m Opi ni on an d Ord er da te d Nov em be r 26

, 20 12

. We d en y Newel l’s m ot io n t o t ak e jud ic ia l n ot ic e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-