## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 D EB RA L EV ES KI, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. I TT E DUC ATI ONA L S ERVICES, I NCO RPORATE D , D efend a nt-A pp ellee, an d A PPEALS OF : M OTLEYR I CE L L P , P LE WSS HADLEYR ACHER& B RAUNL L P , T HE L AWO FFI CES OF T I MOT HYJ. M AT US HE S KIa nd T I MOT HYJ. M AT US HE S KI . Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:07- cv-00867- TWP-MJD

—Tanya W alt on P ratt, Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 17, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 8, 20132 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891

The Honorabl e J ohnZ. Lee ofthe Northe rnDis t ri c tof  I l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. Befo re M ANI ON an d T INDER, C ircu i t Ju dg es, a nd L EE, D istrict Judge.  T INDER, C ircu it Judge. D e b r a L e v e s k ib r i n g s th i s l a wsu i t ag ains t I TT Educa ti o na lSe r vi ce s, I nc . on be ha l fofthe U n ited Stat es, pursuant to the q uit am p r o v i s i o n o ft he Fa ls e C la im s A ct (FC A ), 31 U
. S. C
. § 3730(b). I T T i s a for

pr o fi t insti tu ti o n wi tho ve r1 40 l o ca ti o ns a cr o ss the U ni ted S tat es that offer s pos t- seco nd ar y e du catio nal training, inc lud ing assoc iate’s, bach elor’ s, an d m a s t er’s d eg re es . L ev es ki, w h o w or ke d a t t h e IT T ca m p u s in Tr o y, M i ch i g an, f o rmor e th ana de ca de, a l l eg es tha t I TT knowingl y s ubm i tt ed fals e cl ai m s t o the Depart m ent o f Ed ucati on in or der t o re cei ve fund ing fro m federa l student fi nanci alas si sta nce pro gr am s. Fourye ar s a fterLe vesk ifi l ed thi s l aw sui t, the dist ri ct cour t di sm i sse d i t forwant ofj uris d icti on, fi nd i ng tha t Levesk i ’ s a l l ega ti ons had al re ady be en publ i cl y d isc l ose d an d th at L ev es ki w as n o t t h e orig in al s ou rc e o f h er alleg at i ons. In additi on, the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted sa ncti ons i n the am ount o f$3 94, 998. 33 ag ain st al lthr ee l aw fi rm s r epres enti ng Leveski an d against o ne o f L eves ki’ s attorn eys ind ivi d ua ll y. A ccu sing L eves ki’ s at to r ne y s o f“ p luck[i ng ] a pl aint i ffo uto fthi n a i ra nd tr [ yi ng] to m anufa cture a lucr ati ve case , ” the di str i ct c ou rtfou n d L ev es ki’s alleg at ion s w h olly “friv olo u s.” C ont ra r y t o the d istri ct cou rt, w e beli eve th at L eves ki’ s all egation s m erit furt he r d e v e lopm en t, an d m ore i m p or-N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 3 tantl y, we bel i eve theyar e s uffi ci entl y di stinct fro m p riorpu bli c d isc lo s ure s to gi ve th e federa l d istri ct cou rt j u r i s d i c t i o n o v er Le v e s k i ’ s l a ws u i t . C o n s e q u e n t l y, we r ev er se b o ththe di smi ss ala nd th e san ct i o ns , a nd w e re m and the case back to the dist ri ct cour t for fu rther proce edi ngs.
I Lev es k i ’ s FC A al l eg at i o ns tur n o n the r es tr i ct i o ns pla ced on s chool s that r ecei ve fund i ng fro m federa l student fi nanci alas si sta nce pro gr am s b y the H i gher Ed ucati on Act ( H EA ) , 20 U
. S. C. § 1 001 et seq . There f or e, bef or e turni ng to the speci fi cs of Leve ski ’ s a l l ega ti ons, w e fi rs t r evi ew the speci fics o f the re l evantH EA r est ri ctions. Th e H E A w as origina ll y pa ssed i n 1 965 “[t]o str engthe n the educati onalr eso urces o fo ur co l l ege s and unive rsitie s and to pro vi de fi nanci alas si sta nce f or s t ud e nt s i n po s t s e c o nd a r y a nd hi g he r e du c a t i o n. ” Pu b
. L. N o. 89 -32 9, 79 Sta t. 12 19 . A t is s u e i n t h i s ca se is T itle IV o fthe HEA , “ Gr an ts t o S tud ent s i n Att en dan ce a t I ns t i tuti o ns o fHi g he rEd uc a t i o n, ” c o di fi e d a t2 0 U. S
. C. § 1 070 ets eq . In pa s s i ngT i t l e I V, Co ng r e s s h a d the b e st ofi ntenti ons: to provi de, thr ough insti tuti ons ofhi ghereducatio n, ed u c at ion al op p or t u n ity gra n ts to as sis t in m aking av ai l abl e the be nefi ts ofhi ghereducati on to quali fi ed hi gh sc hoolgr aduates of e xcepti onal fi na nc ial n ee d, who f o rl ac ko ffi na nc i almean s o ft h eir ow n or of t h eir fam ilies w ou ld be u n ab le t o o b t a i n s uc h b e ne fi t s wi tho uts uc h a i d.4 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 P u b . L . N o. 89 -32 9, 7 9 S t at . 121 9, § 4 01 (a). T od ay , Tit le IV go ve rn s t h e a d m in ist ra tio n of ov er $1 50 billion in annual federa lfi nanci alas si sta nce awards forhi gher ed u c at ion . U .S. D ep t. of E d u c ., Fe deral St ude ntAi d: Abo ut Us , http: // studentai d.e d.g ov/ about ( l astvi si ted J u ly 1, 2013 ). N o twi th st an di ngCong r es s’ s g o o d i nt en ti o ns i n pa ss i ng Tit l e IV, the col oss alsum s of m oneynow adm i ni ste re d und er Tit l e I V have l ed to abuses
. Speci fi cal ly, Congr ess becam e co ncer ned i n 199 2 that “ re crui ter s [ ofstud ents f ori nsti tuti ons of h i ghereducati on] pai d by the head ar e t em pted to si gn up poor l y qual i fi ed students w ho wi l l de r i v e l i t t l e b e ne fi t . . . a nd may b e unabl e o r unw i l l i ng to r epay federa lguar antee d l oa n s.” U nited St at e s ex re l
. M ai n v . O a k l and City Univ
. , 42 6 F
. 3d 914, 91 6 (7t h C ir. 20 05 ). A s a res u lt, C on gr es s a m e n d e d T itle IV to p ro hibi t insti tuti ons re cei vi ng federa lfi nanci alas si stance fu n d ing fro m “pro vi d[i ng] any com m i ssi on, bo nus, or ot h er in c en tiv e pa ym en t ba se d d ire c tly or in d ire c tly on s uc c e s s i n s e c ur i ng e nr o l l men t s o r fi na nc i a l a i d to an y per so ns o r en ti ti es en g ag ed i n any stude nt r ec r ui tingo ra dm iss i o n a ct i vi ti es o ri n mak i ngde ci si o ns re ga r d i n g t h e a w ar d of st u d en t fin an c ial a ss ist an c e.” 20 U
. S. C
. § 1094(a)(20). I n 200 2, the Dep ar tm ent o fEdu cati on i ssued r egul ati ons th at s oftened the bl ow ofthe 1992 am endm ents f or in st itu tio n s o f h igh er ed u c at ion by d ec l a rin g c er ta in t y p e s o fa c t i v i t i e s a n d c o mpe n s a t i o n s c h e me s c o mpl i an t w ith 20 U .S.C . § 10 9 4 ( a )(20 ). K n ow n as “s afe h arb or s,” these twel ve provi si ons a llowed, am ong othe r thi ngs,N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 5 institu tions receiving fed eral finan cial as s istanc e aw ard m on ey to p ay st u d e n t rec ru ite rs an d fina n c ial a id offi cer s “ fi xed com pensati on, . . . as l ong as that com pensati o n i s no t adj us te d up o rdo wn m ore tha n twi ce dur i ng any tw el ve m onth per i od, and any adj ustm ent i s no t b a s e d s o l e l y o n the n umb e ro fs tude nt s r e c r ui t e d, a dm i tt ed, e nr o l l ed, o ra war ded fi na nc i ala i d. ” 34 C. F
. R. § 6 68. 14(b) ( 22) ( i i ) ( A ) ( 2002)
. These safe harbor s r em ai ned i n effect f oral m osta decade, u n til the Depart m ent o f Ed ucati on be cam e co ncer ned that they had fai l ed to c u rt ail a b u siv e re c ru itin g p ra c tic es . See, e . g. , Departm en t of E d u c at ion, P r o g r a m In t eg r i tyIs s u e s : In c e n t i v eC o mpe ns at i on , 4 6
- 5 2 , h t t p: //www2. e d. g o v /po l i cy/hi g he r e d/ re g/hearule m aking/2009 /integrity-s es sio n 3-is su es .p d f ( l ast vi si ted J uly1, 20 13) ( det ailin g c om m on abuses and rec

om m ending that “the el i m i nati on o fal lo fthe re gul ato r y ‘ sa fe harbo r s’ woul d b es t se r ve t o e ffec tu at e co ngr ess i onal in tent”)
. Thus, the Dep ar tm ent o fEdu cati on el i m i nated the sa fe harborpro vis ions fro m i ts re gul ati ons i n 201 1, an d it s cur re nt r egul ati ons now fl atl y pr ohibi t insti tu ti ons re cei vi ng federa laward m oneyfro m adj usti ng the sa l ar i es ofstud ent r ecr uit er s an d financi al ai d offi cer s “ base d i n an y part, di re ctl y o r i nd i re ctl y, up on s uccess i n sec uri ng enr ol l m en ts orthe aw ar d of fina nc ialaid.” 34 C.F. R
. § 668.14(b)( 22)(i i) (A ) (2013). I ns titution s of high er ed uc ation m us t con tinu all y certify thei r com pli ance with the curr ent Dep ar tm en t o fEdu cati on r egul ati ons thro ugh prog ra m part i ci pati on a gr eem ents ( PPA s) in o rd erto r ecei ve federa lfi nanci alas si stan ce aw ard m one y. 20 U
. S. C
. § 1094(a). W i th thi s b r i e fh i s t o r y of H EA r e g ul a t i o ns i n mi nd , we turn b a c kt o the a l l e g a t i o ns i n the c a s e a th a nd
.6 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 Levesk i ’ s decade- l ong em plo ym en t with I TT began o n J a n u ar y 8 , 199 6, m ea n in g t h atth e 2 00 2 s afe h arb or p ro visi ons w er e in effect d u ring the l att erhal fo fherem plo ym ent. I TT ini ti al l y hi re d Leveski as an Insi de Recrui tm en t Re p re se n ta tiv e (RR ) for th e Tr oy c am p u s. (D kt . 75, 2.) A s a n I nsi de RR, Levesk iwas re sponsibl e for“co ntact[ i ng] consum er s v i a t el ephone thr ough lead s pro vi ded
. . . by IT T ’s d ire c to rs of re c ru itm en t a t t h e T ro y c a m p u s, . . . p er su ad [in g] t h e m t o v isitth e T ro y c am p u s[, an d ] .
. . p er su ad[ing] them to enr ol land sta rtcl ass es at I TT .” ( Dk t . 4 9
- 1 , 1
- 2
. ) ( I ns i de R Rs di d the i rr e c r ui t i ngi ns i de the I TT cam pu s. Outsi de RRs, i n contr ast, vi si ted hi gh sc h oo ls t o re c ru it s tu d en ts .) (D kt . 141 -6, 10 1.) Fr om the beginning ofLeves ki ’ s e m plo ym ent as an I ns ide R R, I T T m ad e the im p ortan ce of h er “ nu m bers” very cl ea r . ( Dkt
. 7 5, 1 1. ) Acco r di ngt o Le ve sk i, b oth Ins i de an d Ou tsid e R Rs w er e di re cted t o i ncre ase “a pp l i cati ons, enro l l m ents, and sta rt s” at eve rygr oup m eet i ng. ( Dkt. 75 , 10
. ) A p r o spe ct i ve s tu den t who ha d fi l l ed o uta n I TT appli cati on a nd pai d a $100 fee ( bef or e I TT w ai ved the fee in20 01 ) w as co u n te d a s an “a p p lica tio n ” fo r L ev es ki. A pros pecti ve student wh o had add i ti onally p ass ed an entr ance e xam and c om ple ted the fi nanci alai d process

—ba si ca l l y, a ny o ne who ha d “ d one e ve r y th i ngb ut sati n cl ass ”

— c ou n te d as an “e n ro llm en t” fo r L ev es ki. A pro specti ve student wh o actual l y att en ded a cl ass c ou n te d as a “s ta rt ” for L ev es ki. (D kt . 141 -6, 53 -54 .) B y a ll appearance s, thes e a pp l i cati ons, enr ol l m en ts, and sta rt s had rea lr am i fi cati ons f orL ev es ki and the o therRRs; RRs w er e co nstantly r em i nd ed by the Tr oy cam pu s di re ctor “ th at i ftheywanted an i ncre ase i n pay, theym ustN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 7 i ncre ase appli cati ons, enro l l m ents, and s tar ts. ” ( Dkt . 75, 1 0
. ) To fur the r i nc e nt i v i z e the m, I TT pu b l i s he d e ach RR’s sal es goa ls i n a quar ter l y m em or andu m di str ibuted th ro u gh ou t t h e c or p or at e d ist ric t (D kt . 75, 10 .) A lth ou gh IT T ’s sole foc u s ap p ea re d to be on “n u m b er s,” it c lai m ed to ev al uate em plo yee s l i ke Levesk io n a m ult itude o fc r i t e r i a , i nc l ud i ngp r o fe s s i o na lde v e l o pme nt, the a tt rit i on r ate o fenr ol l ed students, “be i ng a tea m pl ay er, ” appe ar an ce , a nd a tt i tu de. ( Dkt
. 1 41
- 6, 1 06
- 07
. ) But ac c or d in g t o L e v e sk i, th es e o th er cr ite ria

— w hich w ere speci fi cal l y l i ste d on the em plo yee ’ s a nnual eval u at ion form

— d i d n o tma t t e rt o I T T
. O v e rt i me , L e v e s k ic a me to r ea l i ze tha t he rs ucc es s in a tt aini nga ppl i ca ti o ns , e nro l l m ents, and sta rt s di re ctl y c or re l ate d w i th her al l ege d s uccess i n I TT’s othe r j ob evaluati on cri ter ia. In oth er w ord s, w h e n L eves ki ha d a good n um bers year, sh e a l s o h a d a g o o d t e a m p l a y e r, a p p e a r a n c e , a nd attitu d e year. W he n L eve s k i ha d a bad nu m bers year, s he h a d s i mi l a r l y b a d s c o r e s a l la r o un d. O f co u rs e, co rre lat ion d oe s n otp ro ve ca u sa tio n, an d it i s certainl y pl au sibl e th atLe ve sk iha d g o o d y ea r s an d bad ye ar s a l lar ound. Bu t L eve skio ffer s e vi dence sugges ti ng tha t the d i re ct cor re l ati on be tw een he r “num ber s” evaluati on a nd hero therj ob cri ter i a e val uati ons w as no co i nci dence. Rather, Leves kisugg ests that the o ther j ob criteria li sted o n t he em p loyee evaluat ions w ere si m plya sham to c ov er up the o nl y thi ng tha t t rul y m atter ed to I TT: the num bero fappli cati ons, enr ollm ents, and s ta r ts . In a n a ffi dav i t, Le ve sk ide sc r ibe d the many i nci dents thatl ed herto bel i eve thatthe othe r j ob c r i t e r i a w e r e a s h a m:8 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 I TT corpor ate em ployees a nd Tro y c am pu s di re ctor s co nti nually r em i nd ed sal es re prese ntati ves to me e ts a l e s t a r g e t s t o o b t a i n r a i s e s a nd s t a y e mplo ye d , but neverdi scusse d tacti cs t o m eeto ther no n- sa l es t ar g et s th atw er e i nc l ude d i n o ur yea rly r evi ew as sa l es re prese ntati ves such as ass i sting the scho oli n m eet i ng i ts att ri ti on budget, b ein g a te am p lay er , ap p ea ra n c e a n d at tit u d e. (D kt . 49-1 , 12.) Du ring the r evi ew pro cess as a sal es re prese ntati ve, I questi oned St eve So re nsen, Patr i ci a Hym an an d B ob M ar tin r e g a rd in g h ow m y s u c c es s in hel ping I TT T ro y Cam pu s t o obt ai n the att ri ti on r at e se t byI TT c o r po r at e was e val ua te d dur i ng the re vi ew . I al so ask ed them how I TT d efin ed att ri ti on r ate and cal cul ate d i t. I w as nevergi ven a cl ea re xpl an at i o n o fw ha t at tr i ti o n r at e m ea nt orhow i t was cal cul ated , no r how m y r ating f or appe ar an ce , at ti tu de, an d te am pl ay er was evaluate d. I n f act, to m y know led ge , ITT d i d not k eep tr ack ofany non- re crui tm ent c ri ter i a durin g each aca d em ic qu arter. (D kt . 49-1 , 12-1 3.) [D ]u rin g m y re vie w s . . . w h en I d id n otsign ificantl y e xceed m y s al es tar get s

— the no n-r ecr uit
m en t cr i te r i a o n my r ev i ews dr o pped from the top per f or m ance l eve lo f“Ver y Excepti onalResu lts” to “R esu lts at Stan d ard
. ” Iasked m y sup ervi s o rwh o c o n d u c t e d th e r e v i e w w h y my no nsal es cri ter i a decr eas ed in uni son w i th m y s al esN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 9 cri ter i a. I w as re ass ured that the sco re I re cei ved i n m y r evi ew

— th e r es ul ts o fwhi chde te r m i ne the per centage of m y payr ai se

— w er e s ole ly base d up on m y s al es tar get s. ( Dkt. 49
- 1, 13
. ) S i m i l ar l y, wh en as ked at her deposi ti on how she cam e t o belie ve that I TT onl y c onsi dered th e n u m b er of ap p lica tio n s, en ro llm en ts , a n d st ar ts in evaluati ng RRs, L eve skip ro vi ded the f ol l owing exam ple s: M y firs t y e a r t h er e, 19 96 , Irec eiv ed a 1 [o ve ra ll ev alu at ion sc or e, w h ich w as th e h igh es t p os sib le s c o r e ]
. Id i d a n e x c e p t i o na l j o b ; I g o ta 1 i n my ap p ea ra nce. Iwore the s am e s uit s the fi rs t day Istarted to w ork at I T T and the la s t d a y I left I T T
. Idid n’t get a 1 again in ap p earan ce. I t d oesn ’t m ake an y sen se. A nd w he n I qu estione d m an agers about thi s, [ they answ er ed, ] bec ause, Debbi e, they do n’ t ca r e. Al lthe y wan t y o u t o do i s m ak e y o ur n u m b er s. T h ey w an t y ou t o s ta rtst u d en ts . I t is a num berga m e. (D kt . 141 -6, 88 .) You re cei ved yo ur r ai ses bas ed on the st u dents th at s t a rt ed . I t d id n ’t m at te r h ow you d re ss ed , i t didn’tm att erwh at col l ege co urse s y ou t oo k. You didn ’ t e nd up get ti ng a ra i se because yo u go t a m ast er ’ s degr ee i n educati on. You di dn ’ t g et a 1 for d oin g th at . Id id n ’t k n o w w h at th e c rit er ia w as [ s i c ]
. . . . Lo o ka t[ my pr o fe s s i o na lde v e l o pm en t eval uati on. ] W hat m or e di d Ihave to do t o g eta 1 i n th a tc a t e g o r y ? G o f o ra P h
. D. ? Ime an, we . . . ha d r epr es en ta tives a t th att i m e ta k i ng10 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
re l i gi ous c l ass es, bec ause I TT d i dn ’ t defi ne wh at profess i onaldevel opm ent was. S o J oi e Bow m an [ an o th erI TT emplo y ee ] w en t a nd to o ks o m ethi ng athe rc hur ch
. (D kt . 141 -6, 87 .) Q. Who t o l d y o u y o u g e t p a i d b a s e d o n y o ur sta rt s? A
. [ I TT m anage rs ] Patr i ci a H ym an , Dave M cDani e l, S t e v e S o r e ns e n, Bob Mar t i n, [ a nd ] r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I fy o u w a n t m e t o n a me th e m, Iw i l ln a me th e m. Q. Yes, wh at re prese ntati ves al so tol d you that? A. J o i e Bo wm an, Da ve M cKi nno n . . . Ic an ’ t th i nk ofany othe rs . Q. W ha t spe ci fi ca l l y di d M s. Hyman t el ly o u? A
. You kno w i t’ s a num ber s g am e; yo u’r e g oi ng to getpai d on the num bero fstud ents you sta rt . (D kt . 141 -6, 73 -74 .) De s pi t e h e rco nc e r ns o v e rho w sh e was b e i nge v a l ua t e d, f orthe m os t par t, the evaluati ons turned o ut wellf or L e v e s k i
. F o rf o u ro u to fth e s i x y e a r s th a ts h e w a s e mployed as an RR, Leves kim et orexce eded her sta rt s g oal num ber, and f orfi ve out the si x yea rs she re cei ved at l east the m edi an r ating f oro ver al lper f or m ance. M or eo ve r, Le ve sk ir ec ei ve d a s al ary i nc r ea se a fte re very ev alu at ion (alt h ou gh th is in c re as e w as m u c h h igh er in yea rs thatshe exceeded h ern um ber s g oal )
. ( Dkt. 49
- 1, 14
-N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 11 15. ) Consequentl y, Leves kicon ti nued to work f orI TT as an Insi de RR un ti la bett ero pp or tuni ty ar ose . That op portunity c am e in 200 2, wh en I TT offer ed Levesk i the c ha nc e t o mo v e fr o m t he h o ur l y posi ti on o fIns i de RR t o the sal ar i ed posi ti on ofFinanci alA i d A dm i ni str ato r ( FA A )
. ( Dkt. 14 1- 6, 50. ) Leves kibeg an hernew FA A j ob on A p ri l15 , 20 02, and quick l y di sco ver ed i t was a new so rto f“num ber s g am e. ” ( Dkt. 49
- 1, 15
. ) In st ead of w or ry i ng about the num ber s o fappli cati ons, enr ol l m ents, an d starts, Leve ski now had to w orry abou t the n u m bers o fs tu den ts s he s ucc es sful l y “ pac k ag ed. ” Once a s tu den t had com ple ted I TT’ s appli cati on pro cess and had p a s s e d th e e n t r a n c e e x a m, th e s tu den tc a me t o a n F AA. The r e, the F AA “ pac k ag ed” the s tu den t

— co l l ec ting perso na l a n d dem ogr aphic i nfo rm ati on o n the student, i nqui r i ngabo utpe r so na la nd f ami ly inco m e, a nd he l pi ng the s t ud e ntc o mpl e t e the n e c e s s a r y f o r ms t o r e c ei ve fin an c ial a id . (D kt . 141 -6, 39 -40 .) A ccor din g to Levesk i, the num bero fstud ents succes sfully “packag ed” d i re ctl y i m pacted an F A A ’ s pay. Despi te th e f ac t th atFA A s w ere pai d a s al ary, i ns te ad o fb eing pai d by the hour, Leveskial l ege s that a n FAA ’ s pack

aging num ber s dete rm i ned w hethert h e FA A r ecei ved a r ai se i n hersa l ar y. ( Dkt. 49
- 1, 17
. ) S peci fi cal l y, Leves ki ca m e to b eli ev e o ve rt i m e th atI TT o nl y c ar ed ab o ut how m uch federa lfi nanci alas sistance aw ar d m oney sh e co ul d s ec ur e f o rthe s ch o o l, a nd ho w qui ckly s he coul d do i t. A s with hercl ai m s ab ou t ITT’s com pensati on ofRRs, Leves kidi d not arri ve at thi s co ncl usi on th ro u gh co m p l e t e gu es sw or k. R at h er , sh e d et ails sp ec ific12 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
c on ve rs at ion s t h at led h e r to rea c h th is c on c lu sio n in both heraffi davi t a nd herdeposi ti on t est i m ony, i ncl ud i ng: Liz Fr anck, Kim Zw i er zchowski, S tephen Godda r d, Ri ch ar d Ze eman, and MattDi eml i ng [ Le v e s k i ’ s s up e r v i s o r s a s a n F AA]
. . . s t r e sse d to al lfi nanci alai d adm i ni str ato rs atfre que n t m eet
i n g s th a tg o a l s o fs e c u r i n gfi n a n c i a la i d f o rI TT st u d en ts m u st be m etto ge t a rais e. (D kt . 49, 1, 18 -19 .) Q. W ha t did M r. Di eml i ng[ th e di r ec to ro ffi na nci ala i d a t th e Tr o y c ampus] t el ly o u? A
. That Iwould r ecei ve an in c re ase i n w age s by se cur i ngfede r alfundi ngf o rs tu den ts by g et ting the m r e pa c k e d o rp a c k a g e d. ( Dkt. 14 1- 6, 34 6. ) Leves kial so note s in heraffi davi t that her yea rl y g oal s were al w ays defi ned i n ter m s o fher ab i l i tyt o s ec ur e t he m o stfede r ala war d m o ne y “ bythe fi rs t a vai l abl e date per m i tte d byFe derall aw . ” ( Dkt. 49
- 1, 17 .) L ev es ki’s su c c es s in m ee tin g th es e yea rly g o a ls d ire c tly d et er m in ed h ow m u c h of a ra ise s h e w ou ld re c eiv e t h e fo llow in g y ea r. (D kt . 49-1 , 1 7-1 8.) Insu m , i t d i d n o tt a k e L e v e sk i l o n gi n h e rn e w p o s i t i o n a s a n F AA to re al i ze that I TT w as “l oo ki ng f orthe m on ey , a n d [i t] w an t[e d ] th e m on ey to c o m e i n on th e firs t d ay it’s av ailab le.” (D kt . 141 -6, 19 2-9 3.) W ith th e c on st an t e m p h as is o n nu mbe r s thr o ugho utthe F AA o ffi c e , Le v e s k ir e a l i z e d, onc e again, that the only thin gs th at m attered to I T T w ere th e nu m bers. ( D kt. 141-6 , 193 .) Altho ug h the numbe rs w er e i m po r ta ntf o rb o thRRs and FA A s, ac cor ding to Levesk i, the press ure to m eetN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 13
nu m ber goals l ed to s o m e pa rticularly uns avory behavi or a m ong the F A A s. The pre ssur e t o secur e a s m u c h fed er al a w a r d m on ey for IT T as qu ick ly a s p os sib le l ed m an y m anage rs and FAA s t o und er re portstud ents’ i nc o mes , t o o v e r l o o k di s c r e pa nc i e s i n the s t ud e nt s’ ap pli cati on s, an d even t o f al si fy fi nanci alai d docum ents. A ga in, L ev es ki p ro vid ed sp ec ific e x am p les of th is be ha vi o ri n h erde po si ti o n: Q. M s. Leves ki, were you eve r i nstr u c te d bya m anage r at I TT to f al si fy fi nanci alai d fo rm s? A
. Yes. Q . W h o in st ru c te d you to f als ify fin an c ial a id f or m s? A. Ri ch ar d Ze eman.

. . . Q. W hat did M r. Zeem an i nstr uct you to do in 2005 that you th ou gh t w as im p rop er? A . H e a sk ed th e fin an c ial a id a d vis or s a n d m ys elf to f al si fy do cument s so th at we co ul d get the s t ud e nt s p a c k a g e d.

. . . Q.
. . . W hy d o you contend M r. Zeem an i nstr ucted you to f al si fy fi nanci alai d docum ents? A. Be ca us e he c al l ed thr ee ofus i n h i s o ffi ce b eh i nd cl ose d doors and as ked us t o f al si fy docum ents s o tha twe c o ul d g e to urs t ud e nt s p a c k a g e d. (D kt . 141 -6, 39 3-9 4.)14 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 Q. Ok a y . Yo u j us t t e s t i fi e d tha t y o u’ r e a ware o f ot h er FA A s fa lsify in g d oc u m en ts atITT ; i s that ri ght?
. . . W hy do y ou con te n d thatthey f al si fi ed docum ents, the y bei ng the unnam ed FA A s? A. W he n y o u woul d m ee t wi th ani ndi vi dual, a nd th ere w ere m an y i nd ivi d ua ls out the re that w ork u n d e rth e t ab l e . T h e y d o n ’ tp u td o w n th e i n c o me o n the F AFS A [ F r ee Appl i ca ti o n fo r F ede r alS tu
dent A i d]. A nd
. . . Iwould sayto them , H ow m uch m oneydi d you m ak e? Oh , Im ade $1 0, 000, but i t was al lunder the tabl e. Im ade them wri te i t o n the F AFS A. Othe rF AA s j ust l o o k ed th e o th e rwa y . T h e y d i dn’ t ha ve i tr e c o r d e d
. . . . At that poi nt Iwould say, Okay,
. . . yo u w er e r eq u ired by l aw to fi l e federa li ncom e t ax. W ell, t h e p erson w ou ld get very u p set som etim es. I ’d e n d u p c a l l i n gmyma na g e ri n, a n d
. . . i n s o me i nstance s the m anage r w oul d ei therco m e back an d sa y t o m e, an d p os sib ly th e D ire c to r ofFina nc e, th at th e pe rson m ad e a m istake. H e d idn ’t m ean he had m ade $1 0, 000. ( Dkt. 14 1- 6, 15 1- 52. ) Despi te the l ess - than- honestat m osphere thatpre vai l ed thr oughout the fi nanci al a id offi ce, L ev es ki c on tin u ed to w or k t h er e fo r fou r m or e y ea rs . In 2005 , she fi l ed a s exual har ass m ent l aw sui t a gainst I TT, w hi ch se ttl ed on N ov em b er3, 20 06. ( Dkt. 49
- 1, 1; Dkt. 141- 6, 247. ) A s part of the set tl em ent agr ee m ent, Lev es k ia g r ee d t o e nd he re m pl o y m en t wi th I TT, a nd th e pa rties app eared to part com p an y forever.N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 15 Bu t a n expres s m ai ll ett er b rought the par ti es back i nto confl i ct onl y si x m onths l ate r. On M ay 17, 20 07, Levesk ir ecei ved a l ett erfrom pri vate i nvest i gat or D avy K eith, info r m in g Le veski tha t he w orked f or a M i ssi ssi pp i att or ney w ho w oul d l i ke to speak to her. ( Dkt. 1 4 1
- 6 , 23 9
. ) Le v e s k iwa s n o ts ur e wh y a Mi s s i s s i pp i at to r ne y woul d wan t t o s pea kt o s o m eo ne i n Mic hi g an ; no ne th el es s, Le ve sk ic al l ed Kei th ’ s pho ne n um be ra nd l eft a m ess age o n hi s a nsw er i ng m achin e. Laterthat day, Le ve sk ir ec ei ve d a pho ne c al ldi r ectl y fr o m the M issi ssipp i attorn ey, w ho tu rned out to b e T im oth y J. M atushes ki( one of the o ri gi nalat torneys w ho fi l ed the pr ese nt l aw sui t)
. M atushes ki, it s eem s, had hi re d K eit h to find form er ITT em p loy ee s w h o h ad p re vio u sly filed law su its ag ai nst the com p an y. A p p ar en tly ass um i ng tha t they woul d be pre dispos ed to thi nk i l lo f thei r f or m erem plo yer, M atushes kico ntacte d these f o r m ere m pl o y ee s, wi th th e ho pe o ffi ndi ngo ne who h ad enough dam aging i nfo rm ati on a gainst the sc hool to br in g a n FC A law su it. (D kt . 141 -6, 24 0-4 3.) B efo re ta l ki ng to M atushes ki, Leves kiadm i tte dlyhad neverco nsi dered fi l i ng an FCA sui t aga i nst I TT. ( Dkt. 14 1- 6 , 2 4 4
. ) Ho we v e r, a ft e r l e a r n i n g ab o u t a p o t e n t i a lF CA cl ai m fr o m M atus he sk i, Le ve sk ib eg anc o nduc ting som e ind ep en d en t research , w hich i nc lud ed “ t [a king] a cl ose r l oo k a t m y o w n re vi ew s . . . [ and] doing se ar ches on the Inter net in re fer ence to Tit l e IV fund i ng an d the r ule s an d r egul at i o ns . ” ( Dkt
. 1 41
- 6, 2 94
. ) Dur i ng herr es ea r ch, she a l so re vie w ed previ ous q uit am a ct i o ns a g ains t I TT, i ncl ud i ng U nited Sta tes ex rel. G rav es v. IT TE du c. Servs., Inc. , 2 8 4 F
. S up p. 2 d 4 8 7( S
. D. T e x. 20 03) a nd U
. S. ex rel
.16 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 O ls on v. ITTEd uc. Se rvs . , Inc. , No
. 1 : 0 4
- CV

- 0 6 4 7
-J DT
- W TL , 20 06 W L 64597 ( S. D. I nd
. Oct. 20 , 20 05)
. Leves kidi d not l i m i t herr ese ar c h t o I TT; i n f act, Leves kial so re sea rche d M atushes ki

— who ha d b ee n co m pl et ely unknown to herbefor e the pri vate i nv est i gat or ’ s l etter

— l o o k i ngu p i nfo r mat i o n ab o uth i m o n the i nt er net as wel la s co nt ac ting h er pr ev i o us a tt o r ne y fr o m the se x u al h ar as sm en t s u it. (D kt . 141 -6, 2 4 7 .) A fte r all th is re sea rch, Leves kid ec id ed that she wanted to bring a q u it a m actio n aga i nst I TT, and M atushes kiwas the attorney t o fi l e i t. Thus , M atus he sk i( al o ngwi tha no th era ttorney who has s ubseq uentl y withd ra w n) fi l ed thi s ca se und erse al in the South ern D istri ct of Ind iana (the l ocat ion of I T T ’s co r po r at e he adqua r te r s) o n J uly 3, 2 00 7, a nd the l o ng p rocedura lhi st o r y o fthi s ca se b eg an . The De par tment ofJ us t i c e de c l i ne d t o i nt e r v e ne i n Le v e s k i ’ s c a s e o n N ovem ber 1 3, 2008 , and the cour t unsea l ed Levesk i ’ s ca se s h o r t l y th e r e a ft e r . ( Dk t . 2 3 , 1
. ) O n J a n u a r y 3 0 , 2 0 0 9, I TT fi l ed i ts fi r stmot i o n t o di smi ss Le ve sk i ’s case pur su an t to Fed. R. Ci v. P. 9 ( b) , 1 2(b) ( 1) , a nd 1 2(b) ( 6) , c l ai m i ng t h a t (1 ) th e “ ‘fra u d u len t s c h em e’ a lleg ed by L ev es ki in th i s m at te r i s i den ti ca l ” to the o ne a l l eg ed i n G rav es , 28 4 F. S up p. 2d at49 0- 93, so 31 U .S.C . § 37 30(b) ( 5) bar re d subj ect- m att erj u risdict i on o verLeves ki ’ s ca se i n federa l co ur t, ( 2) Le ve sk i ’ s cas e was b ar r ed bya r el ea se s he si g ne d a fte rs et tl i nghe rs ex ua lha r as sment su i t wi thI TT, ( 3) Lev es k i ha d f ai l ed to pl ea d he r al l eg at i o ns of fr au d w i th suffi c ien t par ti cul ar i ty, as r equi re d by F ed. R. Ci v. P. 9 ( b) , a nd ( 4) Le ve sk iha d m ade he ra l l eg ations i n a con clusory m an ne r, i n violation of Fed
. R. Civ. P. 12(b)( 6).N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 17 ( Dk t . 4 0
. ) O n S e p t e mb e r2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , J u d g e Wi l l i a m T
. L a wr e nc e , the o r i g i na l di s t r i c t c o ur t j ud g e a s s i g ne d to L eves ki’ s cas e , d ism issed i t un d er Fed
. R. Civ. P. 9(b), fi ndi ngtha t Lev es k iha d “ al lb uta dm i t[ted ] th ats he ha s not p lead he r all egation s w ith su ffici en t p a r t icu lari ty, ” but gave Levesk i the opti on to fi l e an am en ded co m pl aintwi th i n fif tee n da y s. In i ss ui ngthi s o r der, the j udg e ex pl i ci tly r ej ec te d b o thI TT’s j ur i sdi ct i o na la r g um en t an d i ts r el ea se a r g um en t. The j udg e r ej ec ted th e re l eas e ar gum ent because Levesk i had o nly re l eas ed I TT fr om cl ai m s “ bas ed u pon” and “r el ate [ d] t o her e mpl o y men t, ” b utLe v e s k i ’ s c l a i ms i n the p r e s e ntF CA sui t were “deri vati ve i n nature , bas ed o n an o bl i gat i on owed to the Gover nm ent. ” ( Dk t. 74, 4. ) W i th r espectto the j uri sd i cti onalar gum ent, the j ud ge note d that 3 1 U
. S. C. § 37 30(b) ( 5) o nl y b ar re d subj ect- m att erj uri sdic

t i o n i f Le v e s k i ’ s c a s e c o ul d b e f a i r l y c ha r a c t e r i z e d a s a “r el ate d a c ti on ba sed o n the f acts underl yi ng” G rav es . Since Leve skial l ege d m any fa c ts i n herco m pla i nt that occur re d aft erthe G rav es l i t i g a t i o n ha d b e e n r e s o l v e d, the j ud ge did notse e h ow L eveski ’ s ca se coul d be “bas ed on” G rav es . Thu s, the j udg e con clude d, no th i ng sto od i n the w ay offedera lsubj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on o v e rL e v e s k i ’ s c a s e w e r e s h e t o r e - f i l e a n a me n d e d c o mp lain t a lleg ed w ith su fficie n t p ar tic u lar ity . (D kt . 74, 3-4 .) Lev es k it o o kup th e di st r i ctj udg e’ s o ffer to a m en d her com pla i nt, and she fi l ed thi s am en d ed com pla i nt o n Oc t o b e r8 , 2 0 0 9
. ( Dk t . 7 5
. ) I TT i mm e di a t e l y f i l e d a se co n d mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s p u r s u a n tt o F e d
. R
. C i v . P. 12(b) ( 6) and 9 ( b) , thi s ti m e al l eging that (1) L eve ski had a g a i n f a i l e d t o p l e a d h e rfr a ud a l l e g a t i o ns with suffi ci ent parti cul ar i ty, ( 2) Levesk i had a gain f ailed to18 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 sta te a cl ai m , ( 3) Levesk i ’ s sui t w as bar red by a set tl em ent a gr eem ent b etween I TT a n d the Dep ar tm ent o f E d u c a t i o n, a n d ( 4 ) a t l e a s ts o me o fL e v e s k i ’ s c l a i ms w er e ba rr ed by the F CA ’ s s i x-y earst atute o flim i tati o ns . ( Dkt
. 7 7. ) Le ve sk i ’ s ca se f ar ed m uchb etter o n the d isp os itio n of IT T ’s s ec on d m ot i o n t o d ism iss th an it had o n the fi rs t, w i th one excepti on. On M ay 12 , 2010, J udg e Lawr en ce a g r ee d wi thI TT that th e F CA ’ s si xy ea rs ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns a ppl i ed to Le ve sk i ’ s ca se , thus bar ring al lo fLeveski’s c l ai m s o ccurr i ng be f or e J uly3, 2001 ( si nce Leve skio ri gi nal l y fi l ed this ac ti on o n July 3, 2007). T he statu te of li m itat io n s issue w as ITT ’s o nl y v i ct o r y, ho wev er, a s J udg e Lawr en ce r ej ec te d the r e s t o f ITT ’s argum en ts. A fter the d isposition of I T T ’s se c on d m ot ion to d ism iss , L e v e s ki’s ca se p ro c ee d ed in the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o v e r i ngo nly the t i me pe r i o d f ro m J uly3, 20 01 to N ove m ber3, 2 006 i nstea d ofthe or i gi nal J an ua r y 8 , 19 96 to N o ve m be r 3, 20 07 per i o d, an d i t co nt i nues co ver i ng thi s abbr evi ate d ti m e per i od to day since Levesk idi d not a pp ealJ ud ge L aw re nce’ s o rder
. Yet pract i cal l y s peaki ng, this a bbr evi ati on does notm att er m uch to Levesk i ’ s ca se si nce the n ew ti m e per i od

—J uly3, 2001 to N ove m ber3, 20 06

— s t i l lc o v e r s L e v e s k i ’ s e mp loy m en t b ot h as an R Ran d as an FA A . (D kt . 92.) By the ti m e that J ud ge La w re n c e i ssued an o rdero n I TT’s s eco nd m oti on t o dism i ss, he ha d al re ady be en deal i ng with Levesk i ’ s ca se f orcl ose to three ye ar s. N onethel ess , i t a pp ear s that be cause ofnew j u dici alappoi ntm en ts to the district cou rt, case ass ignm en ts w ere shuffl ed, and Levesk i ’ s ca se w as re as sig ned fr om J ud ge L aw renc e’s doc ket to Jud g e T an ya W alton P ratt’sN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 19 do ck eto n J une 2 5, 2 01 0. ( Dkt
. 1 10
. ) Pe r ha ps be l i ev i ng th at i t wo u l d h a v e b e t t e r l u c k wi th a n e w j u d g e , I TT fi l ed a thi rd m oti on to d i sm i ss Levesk i ’ s ca se on M ar ch 16, 2011
. ( Dkt. 14 1. ) In thi s thi rd m oti on, fi l ed pursuant t o F ed. R. Ci v. P. 1 2(b) ( 1) , I TT he ar k en ed ba ckt o a n a r g um ent fro m i ts fi rs t m oti on t o dism i ss, cl ai m in g once aga i n that the federa lco urt l acke d subj ect- m att erj uri sdict i on o verLeves ki ’ s ca se. Instea d ofbas i ng i ts j uri sdic

tional argum en t on 31 U
. S. C
. § 3730(b)(5), how ever, I TT n o w b a s e d i t s j ur i s di c t i o na la r g ume nto n the a pp lica b le v er sio n of 31 U .S.C . § 37 30 (e)(4 ): ( A ) N o cour t sh allhave j uri sdic ti on o veran ac ti o n un derthi s se ct i o n base d upo n the p u b lic d isc los u re of alle ga tio n s o r tr an sa c tio n s in a crim in al, c i vi l, o ra dm i ni st r at i ve he ar i ng, i n a co ngr es si o na l, a dm i ni st r at i ve, o rGo ve r nm en t A c c ou n tin g O ffice rep or t, hear ing, audit, o r in ve st ig at i o n, o rfr o m the ne ws medi a, unl es s th e ac ti o n i s br o ug htb y the Att o r ne y Ge ne ral o rthe perso n br i ngi ng the act ion i s a n or i gi nalso urce o fthe i nf o r m at i o n. ( B) Forpurposes ofthi s par agr aph, “o ri gi nal sour c e” m eans an i nd i vi du alwh o has di re ct and i nd ependent knowle dge o fth e inf or m ati on o n whi chthe a l l eg at i o ns ar e ba se d and ha s vo l unta r i l y pr o vi ded the i nf o r m at i o n t o the Go ve r nm ent b ef or e fi l i ng an acti on under thi s s ecti on whi chi s ba se d o n the i nf o r m at i o n. Based on thi s s tatute, ITT ar gued that Levesk i ’ s ca se was “ ba se d upon publ i cl y di sc l o se d a l l eg at i o ns , ” an d20 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 L ev es ki w as “n ot th e origin al sou rc e o f th es e a lleg at ion s.” ( Dkt. 14 1, 1. ) A l though ba sed o n a di ffer ent s ub secti on of § 3730 , I T T ’s new j urisd ic t io na l argu m en t before J udg e Pr at t was s i m i l art o i ts e ar l i erjuris di ct i o na la r g um ent b ef or e J ud ge Law re nce. S ti l l, I TT now cla i m ed to have str onge r evi dence thatthe federa lco urt l acke d subj ect- m att er juri sdic ti on o verLeves ki ’ s ca se. ( Dkt. 14 1- 1, 6- 7. ) Thi s s tr onge r evi dence cam e in the f or m o f Levesk i ’ s deposi ti on t est i m ony fro m o nl y tw o w eek s pri or, wh i ch

— ac co r di ngt o I TT

— “fi rm l y e stabl i sh[ ed that] Le v e s k il a c k s di r e c tkno wl e dg e o fthe fun da men t al prem i se of her sui t . . . and what m i n im al k now l edge sh e do es ha ve w as no t ac qui r ed i nde pen den tly, b ut thro ugh I nter net r ese ar ch ofprior c ase s br ought aga i nst I TT and co nver sat i ons w i th the l aw yerwh o re cru ited h er , M at u sh es ki.” (D kt . 141 -1, 15 .) Jud ge Prat t foun d IT T ’s j urisd ictional argum en ts m ore c o nv i nc i ngtha n he rp r e de c e s s o rh a d fo un d the m. On A ug u st 8, 20 11, J ud ge Prat t di sm i sse d Leveski ’ s ca se f o rl ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n under31 U. S
. C. § 3 73 0( e) ( 4) , fi ndi ng t h a t L ev es ki’s alleg at ion s h ad alre ad y b ee n p u b licly d i s c l o s e d i n G rav es and that Leve skiwas not the o ri gi nal sour ce o fthes e a l l ega ti ons . Judge Prat t no ted that, l i ke Levesk i, the G rav es rel ato rs had al so been em plo yed by I TT as RRs, and theyhad al so “al l ege d that I TT v iola ted the H EA by com pensati ng i ts adm i ssi ons an d recrui tm en tr e pr e s e nt a t i v e s b a s e d d i r e c t l y o n the n umb e ro f thei r enro l l ed students. ” ( Dkt. 241, 5- 6. ) A lthough Levesk i had a tte m pted to dist i ngui sh her case fro m G rav es , the j ud ge did notfi nd h er attem pts per suasi ve. The j udg e ac k no wl edg ed th atLe ve sk i ’ s al leg at i o nsN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 21 ag a i n s t I T T s p a n n e d a l a t e r t i me p e r i o d th an t he G rav es al l ega ti ons. T he j ud ge al so re cogni zed thatLeves ki m ade addit i onalal l eg at i ons not prese nt i n the G rav es co m pl aint

— m o stno tabl y, th e al l eg at i o n th at I TT c o m pen sat ed both FAA s a n d R R s in a m anner that vi ol ate d the HE A
. ( I n contr ast, the G rav es r el ato rs had al l ege d that I TT onl y c om pensated RRs i n a m ann er t h at vi ol ate d the HE A
. ) But ci ti ng G lase r v. Wound C are Co nsultants, Inc. , 57 0 F. 3d 907, 92 0- 21 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) , f orthe propos i ti on th a t“ th o u g h a c o mpl a i n tma y a d d a fe w a l l e g a t i o ns not cove re d by the pre vi ous di scl osur e, i t i s not enough to t ak e th i s ca se o ut si de th e j ur i sdi ct i o na lb ar, ” th e j ud ge ult i m ate l y c on c l ud ed that Levesk i ’ s a dd i ti onal al l ega ti ons w er e “ i nsuffi ci ent t o w ithstand the ‘ base d up on publ i c di scl osur e’ analysis
. ” ( Dkt. 24 1, 6. ) Thus, J u d g e P r a t tc o n c l u d e d th a t3 1 U. S
. C
. § 3 7 30 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( A) re quir ed hert o dism i ss Levesk i ’ s s uitf orl ack ofsubj ectm at te r j u ris d ict ion . (D kt . 241 .) Fol l owin g th i s di sm i ssa lf orl ack ofsubj ect- m att er j u ris d ict ion, th in gs w en t f r o m ba d to w or se for L ev es ki. Lev es k ifi led a m o ti o n t o a l te ro ra m en d the j udg m en t unde rF ed. R. Ci v. P. 59 ( e) o n S ept embe r2 , 2 01 1, a r g ui ng that the di sm i ssa lo rderhad “not t ake [ n] i nto consi derati on the m ate ri alf actualdi ffer ences between thi s ca se a n d
. . . G rav es ” a nd h a d a l s o i g no r e d b i nd i ngS eve nth Ci r cui t pr ec edent
. ( Dkt
. 2 55 , 2
. ) A sh ar p de ni alr ul i ng r efer r ed to Le ve si ’ s 59 ( e) mot i o n a s a “s ec o nd bi te a t th e apple. ” ( Dkt. 297, 15. ) The denia l did note that “the m ec ha ni c s o fthi s schem e [ a l l e g e d b y Le v e s k i ] a r e p e r ha ps n otid en tic al t o th e m ec h an ics of th e s c h em e a lleg ed in G rav es , ” but em phasi zed that“the two cas es need not be22 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 iden tical” in ord er to be b arred b y 3 1 U
. S. C
. § 3730(e)(4) (A ). ( Dkt. 29 7, 20
. ) In re sponse to Levesk i ’ s a l l ega ti on that bi nd i ng S eve nth Cir cui t p re cedent had notbee n fol lo w e d , the d en ialruli ng noted that “the Cou rt’s deci si on t o gr ant I T T ’s m oti on t o dism i ss w as not an anom al y. To the co ntra ryo therco urts have d ism i sse d n ea rly id en tic al q u i t am su its w he re the p lai nt iff’ s a t t o r ne y [ M a t us he s k i ] c l e a r l y r e c r ui t e d the r e l a t o r s to serve as m ake sh ift and m an ufac tu red w histleblow ers w i el ding gener i c and cooki e- cuttercom pla i nts. ” (Dkt 297, 20.) A long tho se line s, th e orde r conc lud ed w ith a stern cri ti ci sm o fthe w ay i n w hi ch att orney M atushes ki had rec rui ted L eve skito br i ng hercas e. N oting tha t M atushe sk i had r ecent l y a pol ogi zed to ano therfedera l dist ri ct c ourtf orhi s be havi ori n a s epara te FCA case i nv o l ving a di ffer en t f o r - pr o fi t edu ca ti o na l i ns ti tu ti o n, the distri ct j ud ge chara cter i zed M atushes ki ’ s co nti nual p u rs u it of L ev es ki’s ca se as “b ra ze n .” (D kt29 7, 20 .) Le v e s k i, a c c o r ding t o the di s t r i c tj ud g e , wa s “ wo r l ds a p a r tfr o m th e ty p e o fg e n u i n e wh i s t l e b l o we rc o n t e mpl a t e d b y the F CA, ” lea di ngthe j ud g e t o c o nc l ud e th at both “the exi ste nce o fnear l y o n-point cas es re ac h i ng i denti calr esul ts [ and] the at torney- dri ven nature o fthi s l aw sui t” dem anded the dism i ssa lo f Levesk i ’ s s uitf orl ack ofsubj ect- m att erj uris dict i on u n d er 31 U .S.C . § 37 30 (e)(4 )(A ). (D kt . 297, 21.) T he final bl ow to Lev eski’s l aw su it cam e in the fo rm ofsa ncti ons. I TT had so ught sa ncti ons i n the dist ri ct c ou rtag a in st bo th L ev es ki a n d h er co u n se l, p rin c ip ally conte nd i ng tha t the q ui tam sui t was fri vol ous. U pon the di s mi s s a lo fLe v e s k i ’ s c a s e f o rl a c ko fs ubj ect-N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 23 mat t e r j uri sdic ti on, the dist ri ct j ud ge aw ar ded sa n cti ons aga i nst c ounselo nl y. ( N ote thati n additi on t o M atushes ki, Leves kihad sec ured addit i onalco unselby the t im e that the di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d her case a n d g r a n t e d s a n c t i o n s . T h e l a w fi r m o fP l e ws S ha dl ey Ra ch er& Br au n h ad j o i ne d M atus he sk ii n the re prese ntati on o fLeves kio n A pri l30 , 20 09, and the l aw fi rm o fM otl ey Ric e LLP had j oi n ed b ot h M atushes ki a nd Pl e ws S ha dl e y i n the r e pr e s e nt a t i o n o f Le v e ski o n J une 2, 20 11. Despi te thei r differ i ng l engths o fi nvol vem en t w ith L ev es ki’s c as e, all c ou n se l w er e in c lu d ed in th e s a nc t i o ns o r de r . ) Ne v e r the l e s s , b e c a us e we now reverse th e d ism issal, this san ctions order w il l requ ire l i tt l e di sc us si o n. Levesk iand herco unselfile d a ti m el y a pp ealo fbo th th e di s mi s s a la n d th e s a n c t i o n s o r d e rw i th o u rc o u r t . We review Le veski’s app eal conc ernin g the district cou rt ’s dism i ssa lo fhercas e forl ack ofs u b j ect-m att erj uri sdic

ti o n deno vo . Ape x Digi t al, Inc. v . S ears , Roe b uc k & C o. , 57 2 F
. 3d 44 0, 4 43 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. F ur th er m o r e, b ec au se I TT ra i sed a f actual( i nstea d ofa f aci al ) challen ge to j uri sdic

ti o n, we ar e “ no t bo und t o a cc epta s true the a l l eg at i o ns of t h e c om p lain t w h ich te n d to es ta b lish j u ris d ict ion .” Gra f o n C o rp . v . Ha u s e r man n , 6 0 2 F. 2d 781, 783 (7th Cir. 1979 )
. I nstea d, w e m ay “pro perl y l oo k b eyo nd the j uri sdic

ti onalal l ega ti on s of the co m pla i nt and vi ew wh ate ver evi dence has b een subm i tte d on the i ssue”

— such as L ev es ki’s d ep os itio n te st im on y. Id .; s e e al s o Ha y v . In d. Sta te B d. o

f Ta x C o m m ’rs , 312 F.3d 876 , 879 (7th C ir. 2002).24 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891

T he cu rren t ve rsion of 31 U .S. C
. § 37 30 (e) (4), w hich w en t into 1 effec tonM ar c h 2 3, 20 10 , e xpr es s l y i nc or por at es the “s ubs t an- (co n tin u ed ...) II Both Leves kiand I TT agre e that federa lsub j ec t- m att er j uri sdic tio n ove r thi s ca se turns on o ur inter preta ti on of 3 1 U .S.C . § 37 30 (e)(4 ). Th e v er sio n of § 3 73 0(e )(4) ap p lic ab le to L ev es ki’s law su it i s th e ver sio n th at w as “ in for c e w h e n t h e e ve n ts u n d er lyin g t h is s u it t oo k p lac e.” U nited S ta tes ex rel. G o ldb erg v . Ru sh U niv . M ed. C tr. , 68 0 F. 3d 933, 93 4 ( 7th Ci r. 2 01 2) ( noting tha t the l anguage o f § 3 730( e) ( 4) was “al ter ed i n 201 0, but that change i s no t re t r o a c t i v e ” )
. Th i s v e r s i o n o f § 3 7 3 0 ( e ) ( 4 ) , whi c h re

m ai ned effecti ve f ro m Octobe r 27, 19 86 unti lM ar ch 22, 2010

— a tim e pe riod th at en com p asses both Le veski’s em p loy m en t at I T T an d h er su b se q u en t fil in g o fth is law su it

—b a r s fe d e r a lc o u r t “ j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e ra n [ F C A] acti on . . . base d upon the pu bl i c disc l osur e o f al l ega ti ons . . . u n less
. . . the perso n br i ngi ng the act i on i s a n or i gi nalso urce ofthe i nfo rm ati on. ” Pub. L. N o. 99
- 562, § 3, 100 St at. 31 53 ( 1986 ). C ongr ess added this pro vi si on t o th e F C A in ord er to avoid th e “risk that u nn eces sary ‘ m e t oo ’ pri vate l i ti gat i on would di ver t fund s fro m the Tr eas ury. ” G o ldb erg, 6 80 F
. 3d at9 34. W i ththi s co ngressiona l p urp ose in m ind , w e h a v e prev iously i nt erpret ed t he phras e “ base d up on [ a] publi c di scl osur e” to m ean “ substa nti al l y s i m i lar to publi cl y di scl ose d al l ega ti ons, ” in acco rdance w i th vi rtual l y e ver y o ther ci rcui t that h as i nter prete d thi s phras e. G la ser, 57 0 1N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 25

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 t i al l y s i m il ar ” s t anda rd pr evi ous l y us ed by our c i rc ui tan d m o st o th er cir cu its u n d er th e p ri o r v er sio n o f th e st a tu te . S ee 31 U .S. C
. § 37 30 (e) (4)( A ) (2 0 1 3) ( com m an d ing cou rts to “d ism iss an ac t i on or c l ai m und er thi s s ec t i on, unl es s oppos ed by the G overnm ent, i fs ub st anti all y the s a m e al le gati ons or tr ansac tio n s a s a lle g ed in th e a ct io n o r c la im w er e p u b lic ly d isc lo se d .” F. 3d at 920. M or eov er, the appli cabl e v er sion of § 3730 ( e) ( 4) ( B) defines the ter m “or i gi nal sour c e” to m ea n “ ani ndi vi dualwho ha s di r ec t an d i nde pen den t k no wl edg e o fthe i nf o r m at i o n o n whi chthe a l l eg at i o ns ar e ba sed and has vol untari l y pr ovi ded the i nfo rm ati on to th e G ov er n m en t b efo re filing an [FC A ] ac tio n .” Apply i ngthe de fi ni ti o ns o fthe se t er m s t o the i ns ta nt case , w e m ust fi rs t deter m i ne w hether Levesk i ’ s a llegati ons ar e “ substa nti al l y s im il arto publi cl y di scl ose d all egation s.” 570 F. 3d at 920. I f w e d ecid e th a t L e v e ski’s allegati ons ar e no t s ubstanti al l y s i m i l ar, then our j uri sdict i o na l i nqui r y e nd s , a nd Le v e s k i c a n pr o c e e d t o l i ti gat e hercas e o n the m er i ts in t he federa ldi str i ct c o urt . On the oth er han d , i f w e d ecid e tha t L eves ki’ s al l ega ti ons ar e s ubstanti al l y s i m i l ar, then our j uri sdic

t i o na li nqui ry h as a s e c o nd s t e p. In thi s s e c o nd s t e p, we mus ta s s e s s whe the rLe v e s k ih a s “ di r e c ta nd i nd e pen d en t know ledge of th e inform ation on w hich [ he r] al l ega t i o ns a r e b a s e d. ” 3 1 U. S
. C. § 3 7 3 0 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( B)
. ( Bo th si des ag r ee th at Lev es k i co nt ac te d the gove r nm en t bef o r e bringing th is action, so w e nee d not inq uire w hetherLeves ki“vo l untari l y pr ovi ded [h er ] i nfo rm ati on to the Gover nm ent bef or e fi l i ng. ”) ( Dkt. 334- 3, 4. ) If26 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
w e d ec id e t h at L ev es ki h as d ire c t a n d ind ep en d en t k n ow ledge of her al l ega ti ons, then once aga i n, Leves ki can proce ed to l i ti ga te her case o n the m er i ts i n the federa l dist ri ct c ourt . I fwe deci de tha t L ev esk idoes nothave dir ect and ind ependent knowle dge, how eve r, th en 31 U. S
. C. § 37 30 ( e) ( 4) ( A) ba r s su bj ec t- m at te rj ur i sdi ct i o n, and Leveskicannotl i ti gat e hercas e in federa lco urt.
A The fi r sts te p o fo urj ur i sdi ct i o na li nqui r y r equi r es us to de te r m i ne whethe rLe ve sk i ’ s al l eg at ions ar e su bs ta ntiall y s i m i l art o the r el at o r s’ a l l eg at i o ns i n G rav es , 28 4 F. S up p. 2d at49 0- 93, wh i c h w as fi l ed m or e than fi ve ye ar s b efo re L ev es ki’s ca s e o n A p ril 22 , 200 2. (D kt . 241 .) A l though we have al re ady r evi ew ed Levesk i ’ s allegati ons i n Se cti on I, we m ust a l so re vi ew the G rav es al lega

ti ons bef or e m aking thi s deter m i nati on. W e turn to thi s r evi ew n ow . M uch l i ke the pr ese nt cas e, the G rav es case was br ought by rel ato rs wh o w er e for m er em plo yee s o fI TT. The two re l ato rs , S usan N ew m an an d D an Gr av es , ha d wor k ed f o rI TT a s I ns i de RRs

— th e sam e j ob th at L eves ki ha d o n c e h eld at ITT
. M oreover, th e t w o G rav es re l ato rs al l ege d i n thei r com pla i nt that I TT had vi ol ate d t h e H E A byi l l ega l l y pay i ng i ncenti ve c om p en sa tio n to its R R s. (D kt . 241 , 6.) Cer tainl y, the a l l eg at i o ns i n G rav es se em ve rysi m i l ar to Levesk i ’ s a l l ega ti ons on fi rs t i m press i on. But fi rs t i m press i ons can be deceiv i ng. A cl ose r exam i nati on re veal s f our cri ti cal differ ences between the tw o c ase s. F i r st, we no te tha t th e r el at o r s i n G rav es had m uchN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 27 shor terte nures at I TT th an d id Levesk i
. Rel ato r Susan N ew m a n w as em p loy ed by ITT for a p p ro x im at ely nin eteen m ont h s ( from J un e 2, 1998 to Febru ary 7, 2000 ), w hi le re l ato r Dan G ra ves w as em plo yed f orl ess than on e y ea r (fro m Ju ly 1 99 9 to F eb ru ar y 2 00 0). (D kt . 141 -9, 3.) Le v e s k i, i n c o nt r a s t, w o r k e d fo rI TT f o ro v e ra de c a de ( J an u ar y 8, 19 96

— N o ve m be r3 , 2 00 6)
. ( Dkt
. 7 5. ) The re l ati vel y l ong span ofLeves ki ’ s e m plo ym ent, o fco urse , do e s n o tdi r e c t l y i mpa c th e rF CA c l a i m. Ne v e r the l ess , because Leves kiwo rk ed atI TT fo r so m uch l onge r than th e G rav es r el at o r s, s he ha s g r ea te rpo te nt i altha n the G r a v es relators to poss ess relevan t evide nc e abou t I T T ’s com pensati on s chem e that c oul d d ire ctl y i m pact her F C A c l a i m. Se cond, and re l ate dly, the l ong span ofLeves ki ’ s e m plo ym ent a l l ows her to m ake al l ega ti ons aga i nst I TT that c ove r a di ffe r e nt t i me pe r i o d tha n the G rav es alle ga tio n s. A lthough the G rav es re l ato rs w or ked f orI TT fo r l ess than tw o yea rs , theyal l ege that“I TT p ai d i l l ega li ncenti ve com pensati on t o i ts adm i ssi ons re pres en tat i ves” fro m “199 3 t o 1999 ”

— i.e. d u rin g t h e fiv e y ea rs p r i o r to th eir bein g h ired by I TT as wellas duri ng the i r bri efem plo ymen t . (Dk t . 1 4 1
- 9 , 2 4
- 2 5
. ) Le v e s k i, o n the o the rh a nd , al l ege s that I TT p ai d i l l ega li n c enti ve com pensati on throu ghout her decade-l ong em plo ym ent a t I TT fr om 1996 to 20 06. A fterexcl ud i ng the ea rl i erye ar s o f Lev es k i ’ s empl o y m en t ( sinc e J udg e Lawr en ce f o und a l l e g a t i o ns fr o m t he s e y e a r s b a r r e d b y the s i x- yea r st atut e ofl i m i ta ti o ns ) , Le ve sk i ’ s al l eg at i o ns c o ve rthe p er iod from Ju ly 3 , 200 1 t o N ov em b er 3, 20 06 . (D kt . 92.) Thu s, ther e i s no te m pora lo verlap b etw een the G rav es alle ga tio n s a n d L ev es ki’s alleg at ion s.28 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 Thir d, because the G rav es re lators were em plo yed by IT T f or a re lat ive ly sh or t p er iod of tim e, th ey w er e o n ly abl e t o m ake al l ega ti ons abo ut the one departm ent t o w hi ch theywere bri efl y e xposed: the r ecr uit m ent o ffi ce. Leves k i, o n the o the rh a nd , i s ab l e t o p r e s e nte v i dence about IT T p racti ces i n a s eco nd departm ent, the fi nanci al ai d o ffi ce , s i nc e he rl o nge m pl o y m en t aff o r ded h er the o ppo r tu ni tyto h ol d t wo di ffer en t po si ti o ns ( RR a nd F AA )
. Inde ed, Le ve sk i ’ s ex per i en ce a s an F AA dur i ng th e la tte r hal fo fherem plo ym ent a t I TT al l ows her to ma k e a l l e g a t i o n s b o th ab o u tth e w a y th a tI T T c o mpen sa te d i ts e m pl o y ee s i n the fi na nc i ala i d o ffi ce a nd ab o utthe w aytha t I TT appl i ed t o the f ede r alg o ve r nm en t f o rfi na nc i al aid
. S pec i fi ca l l y, Le ve sk ia l l eg es tha t th e F AA s’ s al ar i es “ wer e di r ec tly t i ed” t o ho w m uchfi nanc ial a id th ey co u l d s e c u re for IT T “b y t h e firs t a va ilab le date per m i tte d by F edera ll aw . ” ( Dkt. 75 , 13
- 14. ) W i th re gar d to I TT’s a pp l i cation s forfedera lfi nanci al ai d, Le ve sk it es ti fi ed i n h erde po si ti o n that o th erI TT em plo yee s, and eve n herm anage r, co nd oned stud ents und er re port i ng the i r i ncom e o n the FA FS A ( w hi ch w ou ld , of co u rs e, in c re as e t h e a m ou n t o ffin an c ial a id f orwh i ch theywere el i gibl e)
. ( Dkt. 14 1- 6, 15 1- 53)
. I ftr ue, both ofLeves ki ’ s a l l ega ti ons w oul d consti tute cl ear vi o l a t i o ns o fthe HEA

— an d yet, th ese allegations are w hol l y absent fro m the G rav es case . Four th, ev en putting as i de Levesk i ’ s a dd i ti onalal l ega ti o ns abo utthe ITT fi na nc i ala i d o ffi ce , we se e si g ni fi ca nt di ffer en ce s i n h era l l eg at i o ns abo utthe r ec r ui tment offi ce. Th e schem e a l l ege d by the G rav es relatorsN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 29 i nvol ved a fl agr ant v i ola ti on o fDepartm ent o fEdu cat i o n r e q u i r e me n t s . A c c o r d i n gt o th e m, I TT’s sal ar y a dm i ni str ati on pro gr am f oradm i ssio n s a n d rec ru itm en t p er so n n el p ro vid ed in part f orthe paym ent o f“5 % o fea rned r eve nues f orInsi de Represe ntati ves and 10% o fea rned re venues f orOutsi de Represe ntati ves. ” The l eve l o f“ ea r ne d re ve nue ” was a di r ec t func ti o n o fthe new and conti nuing students a nd gr aduates w ho a re enr ol l ed by th e ad m i ssi ons and rec rui tm ent r epres entat i ve. ( Dkt
. 1 41
- 9, 2 4. ) In a ddi ti o n t o thi s al l eg at i o n tha t I TT pai d dir ect com m i ssi ons to i ts RRs, the G rav es rel ators al l ege d that I TT “h ad m i ni m um enr ol l m ent quot as f or r ec r ui te r s. Re cr ui te r s f ai l i ngt o meetthe i re nr o l l m en t q u ot as w er e fire d . E ac h ca m p u s h a d a m in im u m en ro llm en t qu ota th atwas de te r m i ne d b y I TT’ s o ffi ce r s an d d ire c tor s a s par t o fthe annual budgeti ng pro cess . ” Bri ef of P et itio n er -A p p ella n t a t 6 , U nited Sta tes ex rel. G rav es v . IT TE du c. Servs., N o. 03-20460 ( 5th Cir. N ov. 4, 2003 ). The schem e a lleg ed by Levesk i, i n contr ast, i nvol ves a m uch m ore s ophis ti cate d

— and m or e di ffi cul t t o detect

— vi ol ati on o fDepartm ent o fEdu cati on r equi re m ents. Leves kidoes notal l eg e that e i therherco m pensatio n o r her continuati on a s a n I TT em plo yee depend ed on ex p l i c i t p er c en ta ge s o r q u ot as . In fac t, sh e a c kn ow le dg e s tha tI TT c l a i med t o c o mpe ns a t e he rba s e d o n a wi de r an g e o f f ac to r s ( i nc l udi nga ppea r an ce , a tt i tu de, a nd parti ci pati on in conti nuing educati on cl ass es)
. But Levesk i al l eg es tha t ho w I TT c l ai m ed t o c o m pen sa te he ra nd30 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 how I TT actual l y c om pen sat ed herwere ver y di ffer ent. Despit e I TT’s c l ai m s, Leves kibel i eve s that herco m pensati on was bas ed on onl y one thi ng: the num bero fstud ents Lev es k ib r o ug hti nt o I TT ( an d a s a r es ult, th e amoun t of m one y L eves ki brou gh t into I T T ). M or eo ve r, th ro u gh h er affid av it a n d d ep os itio n te st im ony, Leves kipro vi des ev i dence to supp ort he r al l ega ti o ns tha t I TT’ s cl ai m ed pr ac ti ce s i n i ts r ec r ui tmenta nd fi nanci alai d offi ces did n ot m atch I TT’s a ctualprac ti ces. As the e xc er pts from Lev es k i ’ s te st i m o ny i n S ec ti o n I d em on st ra te d , L ev es ki w as ab le t o n am e s p e c ific in d ivi du al s in p osi ti ons ofautho ri ty at I TT w ho t ol d her th at he r recruitm en t and finan c ia l aid “n um bers” w ere al lthatm att er ed. Leveski a l so provi ded ev i dence that I T T n e v e rc o n s i de r e d a n y o th e rf a c t o r s b e s i d e s h e rn u mbe r s . F o r e xa mpl e , Le v e s k i i nd i c a t e d tha t I TT did not pol i ce what ty pes o fco nti nuing ed ucati on cl ass es that its em p loyees took, ev e n t hou gh the em p loyees w ere alle ge dlyev al uated on these cl ass es. A s a r esul t, I TT em plo yee s who “go t a m ast er ’s d egr ee i n educati on” app ear ed to ge t the sa m e a m ount o f“pro fess i onal dev el o pm en t” c r edi t as e m p lo y ee s who “t o o ks o m ethi ng at [ thei r] church. ” ( Dkt. 141- 6, 87. ) Fur ther m or e, al though I TT e mpl o y e e s we r e a l l e g e dl y e v a l uated o n the i ra pp earan ce, I T T ’s evaluation of ap p earan ce d id n ot corre l at e w ith how the e m plo yee actual l y a pp ear ed. Leves ki tes ti fi ed that she “ w or e the sa m e suit s the fi rs t day [ she] st ar ted to work at I T T and the las t d a y [ s he ] left I TT. ” ( Dkt
. 1 41
- 6, 8 8. ) Ye t sh e o nl y r ec ei ve d a n e xc el l en t appe ar an ce e va l ua ti o n dur i nghe rfi r sty ea ra t I TT

— c o i n c i d e n t a l l y, th e s a me y e a rth a the r r e c r u i t me n t“ n u m-N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 31 ber s” wer e al so “ ex ce pti o na l
. ” ( Dkt
. 1 41
- 6, 8 8. ) Le veski’ s te stim ony sugge sts thatI TT’s s up posed m ult i
- f acto r e v a l u a t i o n s y s t e m w a s l i t t l e mo r e th a n a s h a m. Undoub te dl y, the s ha m c o m pen sa ti o n s ch eme a nd the fi na nc i ala i d v i o l at i o ns a l l eg ed byLe veskia r e di ffer en t than the o utri ght quot a s yst em al l ege d by the G rav es re l ato rs. But the questi on we m ust f ace i s whether Lev es k i ’ s al l eg at i o ns a r e di ffer en t en o ug h fr o m the G rav es alle ga ti o n s t o b rin g h er su it ou ts id e t h e p u b lic di scl osu re b aro f3 1 U. S
. C. § 3 73 0( e) ( 4)
. A r ev i ew o fo ur recen t case law l ead s us to the con c lusion th at th ey are differ ent e nough. In deed, Leves ki ’ s a l l ega ti ons aga i nst I TT are onl y s i m i l arto the G rav es a l l e g a t i o ns wh en vi ew ed at the hi ghestl eve lo fge nera l i ty. But in the l ast few y ears, w e ha ve i ndi ca te d o n mor e th ano ne occa si on that v i ew i ng F CA cl ai m s “ at the hi ghestl eve lo f gener al i ty . . . i n ord er to wipe o ut q u it a m sui ts that re st on g enui nel y new and m ate ri ali nfo rm atio n is not sound. ” G o ldb erg, 68 0 F
. 3d at 936. F o ri ns tan ce, in U nited Sta tes ex rel. B a lta z a r v. Wa rden , 6 3 5 F
. 3 d 8 6 6 , 869
- 7 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) , we r e v e r s e d a dism i ssa lunde r th e § 37 30( e) ( 4) j uri sdic ti onalbarafter w e foun d that the d istri ct cou rt had view ed the relator’s cl ai m s t oo ge nera l l y. There , chi rop ra cto r K el l y Bal taza r br o ug hta n F CA c l ai m a g ains t th e ch i r o pr ac ti c g r o up f o rwhi chs he h ad pre vi o us l y wor k ed, a l l eg i ngtha t th e gr oup had “add ed to herbi l l i n g slips s er vi ces that had not been re nd er ed and [ up coded] f orse rv i ces that had been perf or m ed. ” Id
. at866. Pri orto Bal taza r’ s s uit, the Gener al A ccounti ng Offi ce ( GA O) had i ssued32 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
seve ral rep orts d etailing w id esp read , abu sive M ed icare b i l l i n g p r a c t i c e s b y c h i r o p r a c t i c g r o up s

— wi th o ut nam i ng speci fi c g ro up s that were gui l ty ofthes e abusi ve pract i ces. N eve rthel ess , the distri ct j ud ge bel i eve d that th ese rep orts w ere enou gh to pr e clud e federa l cou rt j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rB a l t a z a r ’ s c l a i m. O n a p p ea l , we p o i n t e d o u tth a tB al ta za r ’ s s u i twa s “ ‘ b a s e d o n ’ h e ro wn knowle dge r atherthan the publ i shed re ports” and had “s u p p lied vit al fa c ts th at w er e n otin t h e p u b l i c d om ain .” Id
. at86 9. Because the GA O repor ts did “notdi scl ose th e a lleg at ion s o r tr an sa c tio n s o n w h ic h B alt za r’s [su it w as]
. . . bas ed, ” we f ound that § 37 30( e) ( 4) di d not st an d in t h e w ay of B alt az ar ’s s u it. Id . a t 868. Li ke B alt az ar ’s a lle ga tio n s, L ev es ki’s alleg at ion s a re cle ar ly b a s e d o n he ro wn k no wl e dg e ; i n her affi da v i ta nd de posi ti on, she provi des the cour t with re lev ant nam es, m ee ting s, an d o th er det ai l s spe ci fi c to he r em pl o y m en t w i th I TT. A nd l i ke Balt azar, Leves kihas supp l i ed th e c o u rtw ith vit al fa c ts th at w er e n otalleg ed in G rav es . Le v e s k ih a s s ug g e s t e d tha tI TT d e v e l o pe d a s o p h i s t i c a t e d , y e ti l l e g a le mpl o y e e e v a l u a t i o n a n d c o mpen sa ti o n s ch eme de si g ne d t o a vo i d de te ct i o n b y the Depa r tmento fEduc at i o n. A s hel pfulas the Balt azarde c i si on i s t o Levesk i, ev en m o r e he l pfult o he r i s o urde ci si o n l as t y ea ri n G o ldb erg, 680 F.3d at 936. The re again, w e r e versed a district cou rt that had dism i sse d an FCA sui t forl ack ofj uri sdic ti on und e r § 3 7 3 0 ( e ) ( 4 ) a ft e r v i e wi ng the r e l a t o r ’ s c l a i m s t oo ge n er ally
. Id
. T he rel at o r s i n G o ldb ergw er e a n ort h op ed ic surg eon and a di re cto r ofr eal es tat e a t Rush U ni ver si ty M edi c a lCe nt e ri n Ch i c a g o . T o g e the r, the y a l l e gedN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 33 that Rush w as i m proper l y b ill i ng M edi car e forse rv i ces perf or m ed by tea chi ng physi ci ans that were, i n re ality, p er for m ed by in a d e q u at ely su p er vis ed res id en ts . Id
. at 93 4- 35. Duri ng the 19 90s, bo th the Departm ent o f H eal th and H um an S er vi ces and the G A O h ad i ssued re sea rch studie s co ncl ud i ng tha t im p ro per bi l l i ng f or ser vices per f or m ed by unsup er vi sed r esi dents was a w i despread probl em i n tea chi ng hos pit al s nationw i de. Id . at 9 34 . M u c h lik e L ev es ki, h ow ev er , th e re lat or s in G o ldb ergal l ege d a m or e s ophis ti cate d, ha rd erto detec t schem e than the ki nd describ ed i n the gov er nm ental re port s. The r epor ts had accused te achi ng hos p i tal s o f bil ling f or servic es p erform ed by residen ts w ho w ere w hol l y unsupervi sed. The G o ldb ergr el ators , on the othe r hand , al l ege d that Rush bi l l ed f orse rv i ces perf or m ed by re si dents wh o w er e no t ade q uat e l y supervis ed. A cco r di ngto the m , Rus h s ch edu l ed te ac hi ngphy si ci an s f o rmul ti pl e su rgerie s ato nc e, s uchtha t “e ve n i fthe tea chi ng physi ci an were prese nt f orthe ‘ cri ti cal ’ por ti on ofo ne [ surg er y],
. . . the surg eon coul d not hav e be en ‘ i m m edi ate l y a vai l abl e forthe rest o fea ch pro cedure, ” a s re q u ire d by M ed ica re . Id
. a t 93 5. Af te rre vi ewi ngthe r e l a t o r s ’ a l l e g a t i o ns , we f o und tha tthe y h a d “ a l l e g e [ d] a k i nd o fdecei t that the GA O repor t d oe s not att ribute to a ny te ac hi nghos pi ta l
. U nl es s we unde r st an d the ‘ uns upervi sed se rv i ces’ concl usi on o fthe [ gov er nm ental re port s] atthe hi ghestl eve lo fge nera li ty

— as c o ve r i ng al lways thatsuperv i si on co uld be m issing o r i nadequate

— th e al l eg at i ons of the se r el at o r s ar e no t ‘ su bs ta nti al l y s i m i l ar . ’ ” Id
. at 936. Thu s, w e found that § 37 30( e) ( 4) di d no t des tr o y fede r alc o ur t j uri sd ic ti o n o ve rthe re lat or s’ c laim s. Id
.34 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 Lik e G o ldb erga nd Ba l t a z ar, w e beli eve th at L eves ki’ s ca se i s y eta no th er inst an ce o fa di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss i ng anF CA s ui t afte rv i ewi ngthe a l l eg at i o ns a t to o hi g h a l eve lo fge nera l i ty. To b e s ure, Leves ki ’s ca se l oo ks si m i l arto the G rav es c as e at first b lu sh
. T h e rela t o r s in both ca se s ar e f o r m ere m pl o y ee s o fI TT

— and e ven he ld the s am e j ob ti tl e. T h e re lato rs i n both case s a l so al l ege that I TT vi ol at ed the i ncenti ve com pensati on pro vi si on ofthe H EA
. But thi s i s where the sim i l ar i ti es between the tw o case s e nd
. The d et ails of how I TT al l ege dlyvi ol ate d the H EA ar e quit e differ ent i n Levesk i’s case th anthe y wer e i n G rav es . U nl i ke the Grav e s r el at o r s, who al l eg e d a mo r e r ud i men t a r y s c he me b y I TT t o v i o l ate the HE A i ncenti ve com pensati on pro vi si on, Leves ki all ege s a m or e s ophis ti cate d, seco nd

- gener ati on m etho d o fv i o l a t i n gth e HE A. Fu rt h er m or e, alt h ou gh w e kn ow from L ev es ki’s d ep os iti on t est i m ony that she revi ew ed the G rav es case before fi l i nghe r l aws ui t, we ar e co nv i nc ed th atLe ve sk iha s do ne m or e th an j ust “ add [ ] a few al l ega ti ons” to the Graves c om p lain t. G la ser, 5 70 F
. 3d at9 20
. In G la ser, w e u p h eld a dist ric t co urt’ s di sm i ssa lf orl ack ofj uri sdic ti on under § 3 730( e) ( 4) aft erfi nd i ng tha t a r el ato r had done j ust that

— chara cter i zi ng the G la serr el at or ’ s a l l ega ti ons as “w r o ng d oing [that w as] vir tu all y i d en tical” to prior, pu bl i cl y di scl ose d al l ega ti on s. Id
. T h e r e l a t o r, C a r o lA. G l ase r, br ought an FCA sui t a ccusi ng a m edi calcl i n ic offra ud ule nt billi ng pra cti ces; but thi s t i m e, the re l ato r w as a pati ent, notan e m plo yee , o fthe m edi calcl i ni c. U nl i ke Levesk i, Glas erhad no insi de i nfo rm ati on fro m he row n per so na le xpe r i en ce a t th e cl i ni c; i ns te ad, s heN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 35 appeared t o have l earned all o fthe re levant i nfo rm ati on inh er FC A co m p lain t fro m h er at to rn ey . Id
. at92 1. M or eo v e r, G l a s e r ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s c o v e r e d th e s a me t i me p eriod cov ered by an on going C en ters for M ed icare and M edi cai d Ser vi ces ( CM S) i nvest i gat i on o fthe clin i c. Id
. at90 9. The CM S i nvest i gat i on ce nt er ed on whether the defendant m edi calclin i c had bi l l ed pati ents f or se ei n g a d o c t o r wh e n th e y h a d a c t u a l l y s e e n a p h y s i c i a n ’ s a s s i s t a n t . G l a s e ra l l e g e d e x a c t l y th e s a me fr a ud ul e ntb i l l i ngp r a c t i c e s i n he rc o mpl a i nt . Ind e e d, Glas er ’ s o nl y uni qu e c on tr ibuti on was poi nti ng o ut a coupl e o fi nstance s in w h ich t he cl i ni c bi l l ed pati ents for see i nga do ct o r( i ns te ad o fthe phy si ci an ’ s as si st an t w hom they had a ctual l y see n) that w er e not m en ti oned in the CM S re port . I t was under these ci rcum sta nces w e h eld that“a dd [ i ng] a few al l ega ti ons . . . i s no t en ou gh to take [a] case outs ide th e j urisd ictional bar, proper l y und er sto od; ‘ base d upon’ does not m ean
‘ sol el y b ase d up on. ’ ” Id
. at92 0. I n contr astto Gla ser, Leves kihas used i nsi de i nfo rm ati on that sh e obtained du ring herdecade- l ong em plo ym en t to make a l l eg at i o ns tha t ar e no ti ceably di ffer en t fro m any pri oral l ega ti ons aga i nst I TT. Levesk i ’ s ca se w oul d be m or e a nal ogo us to G la seri fLe v e s k ihad m er el y add ed a few exam ple s fro m hero w n pers onal experi ence at I TT t o t h e G rav es co m pl aint, r e- al l eg i ng that I TT m ai ntai ned m i ni m um enr ol l m ent quot as fori ts r ecru it er s an d pa i d i ts r ec r ui te r s di r ec t co m m i ss i o ns . But Lev es k iha s do ne much mor e th anr e- pac k ag e th e G rav es com pla i nt. S he has al l ege d new ta c tic s by I TT to avo i d the ma nd a t e s o fthe HEA

— ta ct i cs tha t ex te nd36 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 beyon d the recru iti ng office (the f ocu s of G rav es ) to the fi nanci alai d offi ce. The e xt en t to whi chLe ve sk i ’ s c o m pl aintg o es b ey o nd a m er e r e- packag i ng i s perhaps m os t apparent w hen vi e we d in l i g hto ft wo o the rr e c e ntF CA c a s e s that wer e uns ucc es sful l y li ti g at ed byhe ra tt o r ne y, Ti m o thy M atushes ki
. M atushes ki, wh o bi l l s hi m sel fas the “M i ssi ssi ppiW hi st l e Bl o wer, ” ha s appa r en tly r ec rui te d m an y o th e rF C A r e l a t o r s b e s i d e s L e v e s k it o p u r s u e HE Are l ate d cases ag ai nst for - profi t e du cati onali ns ti tuti ons. The Law O

f f i ces of TimothyJ
. M at us he s ki, avai l ab l eat http: //m i ssi ssi pp i w hi stl ebl ower. com ( l astvi si ted J uly1, 2013 ). For at l east tw o of th es e c ases, M atu sh eski app ears to have rec ruite d rel ato rs wh o posse sse d l i ttl e t o n o kn ow led ge be yo n d w h at w as alre ad y in t h e p u b lic do m ain. I n U nite d States ex rel. Lopez v. Strayer E duc., Inc. , 69 8 F. Supp. 2d 633 ( E.D. Va. 20 10) , the re l ato r re crui ted by M atushes ki, M agdal i s Lopez, was a for m err ecr uit er for Str ay er U n ive rs ity w h o a lleg e d t h at Str ay er p aid i ts r ec r ui te r s i nc en ti ve co m pen sa ti o n i n vi o l at i o n of the H E A
. Li ke the G rav es r e l a t o r s , Lo pe z o nly a l l e g e d v i ol ations in the recruiting o ff ice ( not the finan cial aid offi ce) , and Lopez appear ed to all ege a m or e s tr ai ghtf o r war d sc he m e o f o ut r i g ht r ec r ui tmentc o m m i ss i o ns a nd bon us es. N everth eless, th e ex act det ail s of L op ez’s al l ege d schem e were nevercl eardue to herto tali nabi l i ty to produce anyev i dence ofspeci fi c peopl e, st at em ents, and i nci d en ts to support her al l ega ti ons. Fo r i nstance , w hen ask ed at her deposi ti on t o expla i n cer tain al l ega -N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 37 t i o ns in h e rc o mpl a i nt, Lo pe z c o ul d n o tp r o v i de any deta i l s: Q. Do y o u ha ve a ny f ac tu alkno wl edge ofa ny of the s tat em ents i n yo ur co m pla i nts fro m para gr aphs 43 thro ugh 72? A
. Ihave kno w l edge. Q. W hat know ledge? Poi nt to

— m e t o one f actual sta tem ent that y ou knew befor e t al ki ng to [M atu sh eski]. A
. ( after obj ection by c o u n sel) I ’m not an attorney. You kno w , Icannotgi ve you, yo u know, l i ke, detai l s. Lo pez , 69 8 F
. S up p. 2d at63 9. Lopez’ s inab i l i ty to pr o vi de r el ev an t det ai l s i n h erde po si ti o n t es ti m o ny s t a n d s i n s h a r p c o n t r a s tL e v e s k i ’ s ab i l i t y t o n a me speci fi c peopl e a nd descr ibe s peci fi c i nci dents i n h er d ep os itio n te st im on y, as rec ou n te d in Se c tio n I. Si m i l ar l y, i n U ni t e d S t at e s ex re l
. Schul tz v. D e VryInc ., N o . 0 7 C 5 42 5, 20 09 W L 5 62 28 6 ( N
. D. I l l
. M ar . 4 , 2 00 9) , the re l ato r recrui ted byM atushes ki, J enni ferS
. S chult z, was al so a fo rm er r ecr uit er

—bu t this tim e, for D eV ry U niversi ty

— who al l eged thatDe Vr y pa i d i ts r ec r ui te r s i nc en ti ve com pensati on in vi ol ati on o fth e H E A
. Li ke Lopez, Schul tz on ly al l ege d vi ol ati ons i n the re crui ti ng o ffi ce, and Schul tz al l ege d a st ra i ghtforw ar d bonus i ncenti ve co m pen sa ti o n s y stem f o rr ec r ui te r s th atv i o l at ed th e H EA
. A nd j ust l i ke Lopez, Schul tz w as com ple tel y incapabl e o fpro vi ding any re levant detai l s in herdeposi ti on tes ti m ony. Dur ing S chult z’ s deposi ti on, she re fused38 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 to answ erany questio n s about w hat info rm ati on M atus he sk iha d pr o vi ded he r, a nd wha t i nf o r m ati on s he ha d pr o vi ded M atus he sk i, c i ting th e at to r ne y - cl i en t p riv ileg e. Id
. at* 1, * 4. Leves ki, i n contr ast, was m uch m or e ca nd i d ab ou t the i nfo rm ati on that M atushes ki had provi ded her, and the in f or m ati on s he had pro

vi ded hi m . ( Dkt
. 1 41
- 6, 2 39
- 44
. ) M o r e i m po r tantl y, the speci fi c nam es and i nci dents thatL eve skipro vi ded th ou gh he r d ep ositi on testim ony an d he r affi d avit are det ai l s spe ci fi c to Leve sk i ’ s empl o y m en t

— detai l s that M at u sh es ki w as inc ap ab le of s u p p lyin g t o L ev es ki. It is t ru e t h at se riou s q u es tio n s h av e b ee n p u b licly r ai se d ab o ut whethe r so m e f o r - pr o fi t edu ca ti o nal i ns ti tu
tio n s h av e v iola te d th e in c en tiv e c om p en sa tio n p ro visio n s o f th e H E A
. Se e, e . g. , E d ito ria l, A n In du stry in Need of Accountabili ty, N. Y. Ti m es , Aug. 1 5, 2 011, a t A20. The fac t that M atushes kial one has l i ti gat ed m ult i ple F CA l aws ui ts ag ains t f o r - pr o fi t edu ca ti o na li ns ti tu ti o ns d em on st ra te s t h at th is ge n er al k n ow led ge is w ell w ith in the publ i c dom ai n. But Levesk ihas ad d ed n ew f acts and new detai l s t o thi s gen er al know l edge that were not previ ousl y i n the pu bl i c dom ai n. Even though p ri or r elato r s r epr es en te d b y M atus he sk i, s ucha s Lo pez a nd Schul tz, were not abl e t o add new fac ts and new d eta i l s, Lev es k ii s di ffer en t. Thr o ug h h erde po si ti o n t es ti m o ny an d he ra ffidav it, Le ve sk iha s i nf o r m ed th e publ i c ab o ut a new m etho d ofvi ol ating the H EA pro hibitio n ag ai nst i ncenti ve com pensati on

— a m et h od m u c h m or e d if f icu lt to detectthan outr i ght c om m i ssi on an d bonus schem es. Levesk ihas al so i nfo rm ed t h e publ i c thatH EA vi ol ati o ns i n fo r - pr o fi t edu ca ti o na li ns ti tu ti o ns may ex ten dN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 39 beyo nd r ecr uit i ng depart m en ts and bl eed i nto fi nanci al ai d dep ar tm ents. A nd Leves ki ’ s a l l ega ti ons do not ap p ear to be bas eless; as th e exc erp ts from Le veski’s depo si ti o n a nd a ffi dav i t i n S ec ti on I dem o ns tr at e, s he h as rec ou n te d sp ec ific c on ve rs at ion s w ith sp ec i fic in d ivi du al s that s up portheral l ega ti ons. I n c l o singo urdi sc us si o n o fwhy Lev es ki ’ s al l eg at i o ns ar e no t “ base d up on” G rav es f orthe p urpose s o f31 U. S
. C
. § 3 7 3 0 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( A ) , w e p a u s e t o e m p h a s i z e t wo i mp ortan t p o ints. Fi rst, w e hav e not ignored I T T ’s ar gum ent that L ev esk ihas al ter ed heral l ega ti ons on appeal i n or der t o d ist in gui sh the m fro m the G rav es alle ga tio n s. B u t w e h av e s av ed ou r d i s c u ss ion of th is ar gum ent t o the e nd bec ause w e thi nk it la cks m er i t. A ccusi ng Leves kio f“br i ef [ in g] a differ ent c ase fro m the o ne Leves kiactual l y fi l ed, ” I TT ass er ts that Levesk i d id note m pha si ze the a l l eg at i o ns tha t m o stc o nv i n c i n g l y d i s t i n g u i s h h e rc a s e fr o m Graves in the di str i ct cour t. I TT argues t h at Levesk idi d not e m phasi ze that I TT “ cr ea te d a matr i x t o fei g n c om pl i an ce ” wi ththe H EA e ven th oug h i t “was s ti l li l l eg al l y c o m pen sa ting stude ntr ec r ui te r s” i n h ers ec o nd a m en ded co m pl aint ( th e co nt roll i ngc o m pl ainti n thi s ca se )
. Ye t we ha d no t r o u b l e fi n d i n gth i s a l l e g a t i o n i n p a r a g r a p h th i r t y - t wo ofthe seco nd am ended com pla i nt: W hi l e co nti nually r em i nd i ng sa l es re prese ntati ves to m eetsa l es ta rg ets to o btain ra i ses and sta y em plo yed, I TT corpor ate em plo yee s a nd Tro y cam pu s di re cto rs neve r disc ussed ta cti cs t o m eetnon- sal es tar get s that were i ncl ud ed i n sal es40 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
r epr es en ta ti ve s’ y early r ev i ew s ucha s as si st i ng the s chooli n m eeti ng i ts att ri ti on budget, being a tea m pl aye r, appeara nce, and att i tude. (D kt . 75, 12 .) Sim ilar ly, ITT a c c u se s L ev es ki of n otp re vio u s l y e mp h a s i z i n gh e ra l l e g a t i o n s th a tI T T ’ s i l l e g a lc o mpensati on s chem e ex te nd ed bey ond the r ecr uit i ng o ffi ce to th e fin an c ial a id offic e. B u t a ga in, w e h ad n o t ro u b le fi nd i ng thi s a l l ega ti on in parag ra ph thirty

- ei ght o f Lev es k i ’ s second amende d c o m pl aint : “ Re l at o r ’ s an d o t he r finan cial aid ad m inistrators’ salary increas es w ere dir ectly t i ed to fi nanci alai d: ris i ng and f al l i ng ba sed on wh etherthe re prese ntati ve exceeded orf ai l ed to m eet fi na nc ialaid goals. ” (Dkt . 7 5, 14.) Perh ap s I T T ’s m ostpuzzl i ng ar gum ent, however, is t hat Leve skihas som ehow w ai ved the ri ght to d i stingui sh hercas e fro m G rav es b ec au se she f ai l ed to ment i o n G rav es i n her s e c o nd a men de d c o mpl a i nt . Bu tLe v e s k ih a d n o r e a s on to ment i o n G rav es i n herse c on d am ended com pla i nt. He ra l l e g a t i o ns h a d n o thingt o do wi th the G rav es case . H era l l eg at i o ns wer e ba se d upo n h er ow n pe r so na le xperi ence at I TT, n ot t h e al l ega ti ons ofthe G rav es re l ato rs . G rav es o nl y b ec ame a n i ss ue i n Le ve sk i ’ s c ase on ce I TT bro ught i t t o the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a tte nti on in i ts fi nal m oti on t o dism i ss f orl ack of subj ect- m att erj uri sdic

t i o n . ( D k t . 1 4 3
. ) A s s o o n a s I T T r a i s e d G r a ves , L e v e s k ii mm edi ate l y r esponde d . I n herbr i efo pp osing I TT’s fi nal m o ti o n t o di smi ss f o rl ac ko fs ubj ec t- m at te rj ur i sdi ct i o n, L e v e s k ip o i n t e d o u tt o th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tth a th e r“ c o mpl ainta l l eg e[d] di ffer en t m i sc o nduc t dur i nga di ffer en t ti m e pe riod th an G rav es ” a nd that“ G rav es d[i d] no t a d d r e s s fi n a n c i a l a i d a d v i s o r s . ” ( D k t . 1 5 4 , 1 2
. ) I n s um ,N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 41 I TT has f ai l ed to pro du ce a ny co nvi nci ng ev i dence th at L ev es ki h as alt er ed h er alleg at ion s o n ap p ea l. Se cond, al thou gh w e be l i eve thatLeves kihas evi dence to su p p or t h er alleg at ion s , w e d o n otn ec es sa rily im p ly that Levesk ihas a winni ng ca se. A s we have note d bef or e, “[ r] el ato rs ’ al l ega ti ons m ay be i ncor re ct . . . [ b] u t these ar e questi ons on the m eri ts. ” G o ldb erg, 68 0 F
. 3d at 936. I n other w or ds, we bel i eve thatLeves kicould have a w i nning case , but ult i m ate l y, i t i s up to her t o convince a t r i e ro ff a c tth a th e ra l l e g a ti o ns ar e t r u e . F o rn o w, w e o nl y e val uate w hetherthe federa ldi str i ct c ourthas s u bj e c t
- ma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r3 1 U. S
. C
. § 3 7 3 0 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( A) to letL ev e s k i ’ s c a se p ro c ee d . A ll w e c ar e a b ou t a t t h is st ag e is w h et h er L ev es ki’s alleg at ion s “ re st on ge n u in ely new and m ate ri ali nfo rm ati on. ” Id
. W e fi nd that Levesk i ’ s ca se d oe s res t o n genui nel y new and m ate ri al in fo r m a tion, an d as a result, L eves ki’ s all egation s are not “subst anti al l y s i m i l arto publi cl y di sc los ed al l ega ti ons. ” G la ser, 57 0 F
. 3d at 920. Leves ki ’ s case i s not “bas ed up on” the p rior G rav es a l l e g a t i o ns , a nd s o the fe deral dist ri ct c ourthas subj ect-m att erj uri sdic ti on o verher case un d er § 3730(e)(4) (A ).
B Because we fi nd thatLeves ki ’ s a lleg atio ns ar e no t “bas e d u po n the p ub l i c di s c l o s ur e o fa l l e g a t i o ns ” u nd er 31 U
. S. C. § 3 730( e)(4)(A ) , o ur j uri sdic ti onali nquir y nee d not go any further
. N ev er th el ess , we pause her e t o note thatev en i fwe had fou n d that Leve ski ’ s a l l ega ti ons w er e ba sed o n a pr i orpubli c di scl osur e, Leves ki42 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
w oul d sti l lbe al l owed to p ro ceed as an “or i gi nalso urce” o f her i nfo rm ati on. 31 U
. S. C. § 3 730( e) ( 4) ( A )
. Recall that Levesk im ay litig at e hercas e o n the m er i ts

— eve n i fher al l ega ti ons ar e ba sed upon a pr ior publ i c di scl osu re

— as lon g a s s h e h as “d ire c t a n d ind ep en d en t k n ow led ge of th e inform atio n on w hich [ he r] all egation s are bas ed
. ” 31 U
. S. C
. § 3730(e)(4) (B). I n eva l uati ng wh etherL eve skii s a n “o ri gi nalso urce” o fhe rc l ai m s, we fi nd o url an g ua g e i n Ba l t azar, 635 F. 3d at 86 9, p ar tic u l a rly en ligh te n in g: “T h e q u es tio n is w hetherthe re l ato r i s a n or i gi nalso urce ofthe al l ega t i o ns i n the c o m pla i nt an d n o t, a s the di s t r i c tc o ur ts up posed, wh eth er the re l ato r i s the so urce ofthe i nfo rm ati on in the pu bl i shed rep or ts. ” Thus, i t i s no t a pp ro pri ate to a skwhethe rLe ve sk iwas the o r i g i na ls o ur ce o fthe al l eg at i o ns i n G rav es . N ori s i t appropri ate to as k whether Lev es k iw as th e fi r stpe r so n t o b r i ngHEA v i o l at i o ns by fo r -p rofi t ed uc ational institut ions to the pu bli c’s att enti on. Rather, i t i s a pp ro pri ate to as k whether Levesk i i s the o ri gi nalso urce ofthe speci fi c al l ega ti ons i n her c om p lain t. For th e s a m e reason s tha t w e foun d that Le veski’s all egation s are not“base d up on” a prior pu bli c d isclosure und er§ 3730 ( e) ( 4) ( A ) , we al so fi nd thatshe has di re ct an d i nde pen den t k no wl edg e o fhe ra l l eg at i o ns , a nd thus , i s th e o r i g i na ls o ur ce o fthe m . In G la ser, 57 0 F.3 d at 921 , we i nd i c a t e d tha ta r e l a t o r ’ s kno wl e dg e wa s n ot “dir e c t ” i fthe r e l a t o r“ ha d no kn o w ledg e w ha tsoev ero ft he fr a u d u l e ntc o n d u c tb e f o r e h e a r i n gfr o m a n a t t o r n e y . ” We furtheri nd i cate d that a r elator ’ s know l edge was notN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 43 “i nd ependent” i fthe re l at or w oul d not “ ‘ have l earned o fthe a l l eg at i o n o rt r an sa ct i o ns i nde pen den tl y o fthe pu bl i c di scl osur e. ’ ” Id
. ( qu oti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bank o f Far m i ngt on , 166 F.3d 853 , 865 (7th C ir. 1999)). A lon g these l i nes, I TT argues thatLeves ki ’ s know l edge ofthe RR and FAA co m pensation schem es w as nei ther dir ect nori nd epend en t s i nce Leve skiadm i tte d at her de po s i t i o n tha ts he h a d n o tc o ns i de r e d fi l i nga n F CA sui t unti lat torney M atushes kico ntacte d her. D kt
. 14 1- 6, 244. Yet j ust be cause Levesk ihad neverco ns idered fi l i ng sui t unti l an att or ney conta cted her does not n eces sar i l y m ean that s h e lac ked suffi ci ent know l edge t o bring sui t. I t co uld s i m plym ean th at L eve skidi d not know h er ri ghts und erthe l aw . A nd thatappears to be th e ca se here

— altho ugh w e know thatLeves kir evi ew ed pri orFCA co m pla i nts a gainst I TT after speak i ng with M atushes ki, i ncl ud i ng G rav es , 2 84 F
. S up p. 2 d 4 87, a nd O l s on , 2006 W L 64597, Le veski has prov id e d t he cou rt w ith m an y p iec e s o f ev id en c e t h at co u ld h av e o n ly com e fro m her
. A s deta i l ed i n Se cti on I, L eve skihas recalled sp ecifi c con versat ions w ith he r person al sup erv i s o r s tha ti nd i c a t e I TT wa s i n v i o l a t i o n o fthe HEA thro u gh out the c ours e o fLeves ki ’ s decade- l ong em plo ym ent. M atushes kico uld nothave fe d t h i s e vi dence to Lev e s k i
. Matus he s k in e v e rwo r k e d fo rthe T r o y, M i ch i g anc ampus o fI TT

— he l i ves at the o ther end of the c o un t r y i n M i s s i s s i pp i

— so he would have no w ay ofkno w i ng wh at occur re d on thatspeci fi c ca m pu s. N or could the G rav es co m pla i nt have fed thi s e vi dence to Lev es ki. The G rav es c om p lain t is ex tr em ely ge n er al, provi ding abso l utel y no detai l s about how ei ther r el ato r44 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
surm i sed thr ough thei r em p loy m ent that I TT m i ght b e in v i o l at i o n o fthe HEA
. I r o ni ca l l y, the a l l eg at i o ns c o nt a i ne d wi thin the G rav es co m pl aintr ea d l i k e so m ethi ng th a tc a me fr o m a n a t t o r n e y, a n d n o tth e r e l a t o r s th e mse lve s. (D kt . 141 -9.) I n contr a s t, v i r t ua l l y a l lo fLe v e s k i ’ s e v i de nc e i n s up porto fheral l ega ti on s aga i nst I TT com es fro m co nver sat i o ns t o wh i c h s he wa s a p a r ty. Fo ri ns t a nc e , i n he rde posi ti on, Leves kim ake s s om e r efer ences to i nfo rm ati on she l earned fro m othe r I TT e m plo yee s, but f or the m ost part, L ev eskidi scusse s st atem ents that were m ade direc tly t o h e rb yh e rs u p e r v i s o rs a tI TT
. Le ve sk i’ s m ai n evi dence i s p er sona la nd s pe c i fi c t o h e r ; i ti s n o ts e c o nd

- o rthi r dhand evid en ce l earned fr om ano therso urce l i ke an at
t o r n e y, a c o - w o r k e r, o r a p r i o r l a w s u i t . T h e r e f o r e , we fi nd thatLeves ki ’ s e vi dence i s ba sed o n h ero w n dir ect a n d in d e p e n d e n tkn o wl e d g e . B e c a u s e th e mo s tc o mp e l l i n ge v i d e n c e a g a i n s tI T T c o u l d h a v e o n l y c o me from Le veski herse lf, w e ar e n ot troub led by L eves ki’ s ad m iss ion th at sh e h ad n otco n te m p l a te d filing su it unti lM atu sh esk ico ntacte d her. A tto rney s a re al l owed to advi se potenti alfuture cl i ents ofbo th the co ntents of the l aw a n d t h eirr i ghts und erthe l aw ; i t i s upon that b as is th at at to rn ey s a re p er m itt ed to ad ve rt ise th eir se rv ice s. Se eBat e s v. St at eBarof Ar iz. , 43 3 U.S
. 35 0, 37 6 (1977) (noting th at ad vertisin g a ll ow s a “su p p li er [attorn ey ] to i nfo rm a potenti alpurchase r [ cl i ent] o fthe ava ilabi l i ty and ter m s o fexchange ”)
. A fteral l, “pot enti alcl i ents ra re l y know i n advance what se rv i ces t h ey do in f act need, ” a nd i n so m e ca ses , pote ntial c l i ents do not know that they need any ser vi ces fro m an a tto rney . Id
. at38 6N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 45

Be c a u s e I T T mak e s muc h o f Ma t u s h e s k i ’ s “ t r a c k r e c or d of 2 im prop er behavior” i n it s brief, w e s pe ci fic all y asked ITT at o ra l a rgum ent w hat r ule ofprof es si onal c ond uct that M atus he s ki ’ s “r ec ru i t m en t ” o fL ev es ki vi ol at ed. I TT c oul d not supp ly us w ith a s ingle rule
. (Bu rger, C.J. , conc urring in p art an d dissen ting in p a rt). H ere, L eves ki ha d no idea that she w as sitting on in form at i o n tha t was po te nt i al l y v aluabl e to the g o ve r nm ent unti lM atush eskico ntacte d her. The f act that Levesk i fi rs t l earned the potenti al val ue of h er inf or m at i o n fr o m Ma t u s h e s k id o e s n o tb a rh e rc l a i m. 2 M o r eo ve r, j us t beca us e a par tyfi r stl ea r ns tha t sh e m ay have a va l uabl e l ega lcl ai m fro m an a tto rney see ki ng herbusi ness does not m ean that the par ty’ s ca se is bog us . Le ve sk i ’ s co uns eldr ew a n a na l o g y a t o r ala r g um ent b etween the eve nts underl yi ng Leve sk i’ s deci si on to fi l e herFCA sui t a nd the eve nts und er l yi ng the defen d an ts ’ d ec isio n in t h e fa m o u s c as e, Lawre nc ev. Texa s , 539 U .S. 55 8 (2 00 3), t o p u rs u e t h eir ap p ea l all th e wa y t o th e S u p r e me C o u r t . Ac c o r d i n gt o a r e c en t b oo k b y U n ive rs ity o f M in n es ot a la w p ro fes so r D ale Carp en ter, the Law re ncedefendants would neve r have appealed the const i tuti onal i ty ofthei r sodom y c onvi ctio n s o n th eir ow n . Se eFl agran t C o nduct : TheSt ory of L a wre n c e v. Te xas 13 2 ( W
. W
. Nor to n & Co
. 2 01 2) ( no ting that nei thero fthe Lawre nce d e f e n d an ts h ad th e “ ‘fire in the b elly ’ r eact i on [ to thei r ar re st] o fact i vi sts r eady t o tak e o n the l ega lsyste m ”)
. Inst ead, the “l ega ltraj ecto ry ” o f La w rence was the r es ul t o fg aya ct i vi st s le arni ngo fthe46 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 defen dan ts ’ a r r es t an d s ubs eque nt l y put tingthe de fen dan t s i n t o uc h wi th a l e s b i a n, g a y, b i s e xu a l, a nd t ra nsge n d er lega l d efe n se or g a n iza tio n . Id
. a t 11 8. W i th

out the e ncoura gem ent o fat torneys fro m t hi s o rg ani zatio n, th e d efe n d an ts n ev er w ou ld h av e k n ow n th eir r i g ht s . They w o ul d h a v e n e v e rkno wn tha tthe y h a d a s t r o n gc o n s t i t u t i o n a lc h a l l e n g e t o t h e T e x a s s o d o my law , an d th u s, w ou ld n ev er h av e p u r s u e d a n ap p ea l. Id
. a t 11 7- 32
. L eves ki co nt en ds th ats he i s i n the sam e posi ti on: w i thout the encour age m ent ofat to rney M atushes ki, she w oul d h av e neverkno w n herr i ghts. T h is a n alo gy is in te re st in g, bu t u n n ec es sa ry . Th e a n n als o fl eg alhi st o r y a re fu l lo fe xa m pl es o fl awy er s pl ay i ng a vi ta lr o l e i n e nc o ur ag i ngpa r ti es to l i ti g at e. I fdo ne in a p ro per m anner

— th a ti s , wi th i n th e c o n fi n e s o fthe appli cabl e r ule s ofpro fess i onalco nd uct

— th er e is nothi ng ab ou t such att or ney invol vem ent that neg ate s th e va l i di tyo fa s ui t. As a ppl i ed to the c as e atha nd, I TT has no t shown thatM atushes ki ’ s co nd uct i nval i dates L e v e s k i ’ s c l a i m. A ltho ug h we fi nd I TT’ s ar g um en t r eg ar di ng M atushes ki ’ s r ol e in thi s s uitunpersuasi ve , ITT rai ses a s eco nd ar gum ent c hal l engi ng the di re ctness and i nd epend ence ofLeves ki ’ s know l ed ge. Leves ki, I TT p oi nts out, was neveri n a pos i ti on o fautho ri ty du ring her e mp l o y me n t ; s h e w a s n e v e rr e s p o n s ib l e f o rs e t t i n ge mpl o y e e c o mpe n s a t i o n o rfi l i n gP P As
. As a r e s u l t, I TT argu es th at L eves ki lacks “su ffici en t know led g e of I T T ’s al l eg ed l y i l l ega lco m pensati on pra cti ces. ” In re sponse to thi s a rgum ent, we note that w e hav e nev err equi re d a relator to ha ve p reviously occu p ied a p ositi on of aut hor-N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 47 ity, and i n fact, w e hav e p r evious ly foun d rel ators w ho w er e eve n gr eat er outsi ders than Levesk i to p os se ss dir ect and i nd ependent knowle dge o fthei r FCA cl ai m s. F o ri ns ta nc e, i n U ni t e d S ta tes ex re l
. La m e rs v. Ci ty of G reen Bay, 168 F.3d 101 3 (7th C ir. 1999), th e relator, A l l en Lam er s, o w ned a pri vate b u s co m pany thathad o nc e co nt r ac te d wi ththe c i tyo fGr ee n Ba y t o b us schoo lchi l dren. A fteri t l ostthe contr act, the own er fi l ed an F CA sui t a l l eging tha t the ci ty ofGree n Bay h ad frau d u len tly rep re se n te d to th e F ed er al T ra n sit A dm i ni str ati on ( FTA ) thati t was in com pli an ce with FT A regulations in e x ch an ge for FT A fun d ing. L am ers had ne v e re v e n wo r k e d fo rthe c i ty o fGr e e n Bay

— l et al o ne wi tn es se d o rpa r ti ci pat ed i n the c ity’ s fi l i ng of com p li an ce form s. Y et stil l w e foun d that La m ers’s FCA sui t had adequate subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on because h e h ad di re ct a nd i nd ependent knowle dge deri ved fro m “walk [ i ng] the str eets o fGree n Bay obs er vi ng the buses i n act i on. ” Id
. at10 17. Lam er s had spent t i m e obser vi ng the Gree n Bay buses, an d his o bser vati ons c all ed i nto questi on wh etherGree n Bay was in com p li an ce w ith FT A regulations. It w as u nn eces sary f orLam er s t o prove per sonalkno w l edge th at Green Bayha d fr au dul en tly c er ti fi ed i ts c o m pl i an ce wi thF TA re gu lat ions at the o utseto fhi s s uit
. Cl ear l y, Gree n Bay w as ce rt ifyin g t h at it w as in c om p lian c e s in c e itw as st ill r ec ei vingF TA fundi ng

— w hich m ean t th at ifLa m ers’s al l ega ti ons w er e t rue, Gree n Bay was fals elyc er ti fy i ng i t was i n com pli ance. A d e c a d e after La m ers , we re affi rm ed that a r el ato r ne e d n o tp r o d u c e a c o p y o fth e a c t u a ld o c u m en t48 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891
m ak in g t h e fa lse cla im at t h e o u ts etof th e la w su it in U ni t e d S t a tes ex re l
. Lu s b y v . Rol l s - RoyceCorp. , 57 0 F
. 3d 849, 85 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09). T here , Curti s J
. Lusby, a f or m er Ro l l s- Ro y ce e ng i neer, b r o ug hta n F CA s ui t cl ai m i ng that the com pany w as f al sel y cer ti fyi ng that the en gines i t bu i l t forthe A i r For ce c onf or m ed to m i l i tar y s peci fi catio n s. Id
. at850. In res ponse, R ol l s- Royce ar gued that as an en g i ne er, Lus byha d no t se en“ an y o fthe i nv o i ce s an d re prese ntati ons that Rol l s- Royce sub m i tte d to i ts custo m er s. He kn[ ew] ab o uts hi pm en ts a nd pa y m en ts , b ut he d[i d] no t hav e a cces s t o the paper w or k. ” Id
. at85 4. A l though Lusby ad m i tte d that he had not had acces s t o the paper w or k, he c ounter ed that “R olls

- Royce m ust h av e s u b m itt ed atlea st on e s u c h ce rt ific a t e [of co m p liance] , o r the m i l i tar y s er vice s w oul d not hav e pai d fo r the g oo ds. ” Id
. W e a gr eed with Lu sby, hol ding: W e don’ t thi nk i t e sse nti alf orthe re l ato r to produ ce the i nvoi ces ( and accom pa nyi ng r epres entati o ns ) a tthe o ut s e to fthe s ui t . T r ue , i ti s e s senti al to show a f alse st ate m ent. But m uch knowledge is i nfe re nti al

— pe o pl e a r e c o nv i c t e d b e y o nd a re aso n able doubt ofco nspir acy w i thout a wri tte n c o n t r a c tt o c o mmi ta fu t u r e c r i me

— an d the inference that Lu sby propos es i s a pl ausibl e o ne. Id . M or eo ve r, w e n ot ed th at “[s ]in c e a rela to r is u n like ly to ha ve tho se do cuments un le ss he wor k s i n the de fen dant’s a c c ou n tin g d epart m ent, ” ho l ding othe rwis e w ou ld ha ve “take [n] a big b ite ou t of q u it a m l i ti gat i on. ” Id
. Bo th La m ers a nd Lusbyst and fo r the pr oposi ti on that Levesk ineed notpro du ce c opi es ofthe PPA s in w hi chN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 49 I TT cert i fi ed com pli ance w ith t h e HE A atthe outse t o f her l aw sui t. For now , an i nfe re nce i s enough. L ev eski obs er ved I TT rece i ve federa l fu nd i ng thr oughout her em plo ym ent, and I TT coul d onl y hav e r ecei ved fed er al fund i ng by c erti fyi ng co m pli ance with the H EA
. Conseq u e n t l y, i fL e v e s k i ’ s al l e g a t i o n s ab o u ti n c e n t i v e c o mpen sa ti o n a r e true , the n I T T m us t ha ve b ee n fals elycerti fy i ngc o m pl i an ce wi ththe HEA
. F ur th er m o r e, o ur holdi ngi n La m ers c o mpl e t e l y r e fut e s I TT ’ s c o nt e nt i on that Levesk ineeded to be i n a pos i ti on ofautho ri ty or r e s p o n s ib l e f o rs e t t i n gth e c o mp e n s a t i o n o fo th e re mpl o y ee s atI TT in o r dert o ha ve di r ec t an d i nd ep en d en t knowle d ge o fherFCA cl ai m . Recal lthatr el ato r L am ers ne ver w orked for th e city of G ree n B a y b efore fi l i nga n F CA s ui t ag ains t i t, a nd y etwe f o und tha t he had suffi ci ently di re ct a nd i nd ependent knowle dge bas ed on his perso na l observ ations as a total ou tsid er. 168 F. 3d at 1017
. I fLam er s’ s obser vati ons as a t ota lo utsi der fro m the defe nd ant were su ffi ci ent t o const i tute “dir ect and i nd ependent knowle dge ofthe i nfo rm ati on on w h ic h t h e a lleg at ion s w er e b as ed ,” th en ce rt ain ly Lev es k i ’ s o bs er va ti o ns a s a te n-yea re m pl o y ee o fthe d efend an t com p an y are suffi cient
. 31 U
. S. C. § 3 730(e) (4)( B ).
III G i ven o ur fi nd i ng tha t Leve ski ’ s a l l ega ti ons ar e s uffic i e n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m G rav es

— no t to ment i o n o ur fi nd in g th at she has di re ct a nd i nd ependent knowle dge o f h era l l eg at i o ns

— our sancti ons anal ysi s be com es quit e ea sy . Th e d ist ric t jud ge sa n c tio n ed M at u sh es ki p er so n ally50 N os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 und er28 U
. S. C. § 1 927 and sancti oned the Law Offi ces of T i m othyJ
. M atushes ki, Pl ew s S hadle y, and M otl ey Ri ce unde rFed
. R. Ci v. P. 1 1. Al th o ug h the se s an ct i o ns w er e g ra n te d u n d er tw o d iffer en t ru les , t h e y w er e a ll g r an te d f o rthe s am e re as o n: the di st r i ctj udg e co ncl ude d tha t Lev es k i ’ s co uns elha d c o nt i nue d t o pur su e a “ fri vol ous” case despi te “unm i sta kably c l earwarni ngs that [ they w er e] pl aying with fi re bypushingthe case for w ar d .” (D kt . 318 , 23.) As i ndi ca te d above, we di sa g r ee wi ththi s co nc l us i o n. O u rl e n g th y d i s c u s si o n o fL e v e s k i ’ s c a s e h a s s h o wn that Levesk i ’ s ca se appears to be substa nti al, notfri vol o us . Ev en di sr eg ar di ngthe f ac t th atLe ve sk i ’ s al l eg at i o ns cove r a l ate r ti m e per i od than the G rav es al l ega ti ons, Levesk ihas sti l lpro vi ded the dist rict co urt w i th at lea s t t w o w ay s in w h ich h er alleg at ion s s u b st an tia lly differfro m the G rav es all egation s: (1) G rav es al l ege d a n o u t r i g h ts c h e me t o v i o l a t e th e HE A i n c e n t i v e c o mpens at ion ba n, i n w hi ch I TT d i d not e ven a tte m pt to fei gn com p li an ce, and ( 2) G rav es w as sol el y c oncerned w i th the I TT recr uit m ent o ffi ce a nd had nothi ng to sa y about the I TT financi alai d offi ce. M or eov er, thr ough her affi davi t a nd deposi ti on t est i m ony, Leves kihas provi ded the dist ri ct c ourtwith num er ou s pie ces of ev i den ce b o thsuppo r tinghe ra l l eg at i o ns a nd de m o nstr ating tha t herkno w l edge i s di re ct a nd i nd ependent. A t thi s s tag e o fthe l i ti gat ion , w e thi nk tha t Leve ski has pro du ced m or e than enough to ove rco m e the 31 U
. S. C. § 3 730( e) (4) j uri sdic ti onalbar
. W e do not know wh e th e rL e v e s k iwi l lu l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l, n o rd o weN os. 12
- 1369 , 12
- 1967, 12
- 1979 , 12
- 2008 & 12
- 2891 51 st at e a n y op in ion as t o w h et h er L ev es ki should ult i m ate l y p re vai l
. But w e do bel i eve thatLeves ki shoul d be a l l owed t o litigate hercas e o n the m er i ts, an d thu s, san ctions f or bri ng ing a fr ivol ou s law su it are i napp ro pri ate . Of c ours e, i fi t be com es cl earla te r in the cour se of l i ti g at i on tha t Lev es k iha s m ade up al lo fhe ra l l eg at i o ns and al lo f h er supporting ev i dence, then sancti ons m ay be warr anted. But f ornow, the t ruth o fLeves ki’s al l ega ti ons i s no t a pp ro pri ate l y r eso l ved on a m ot ion to dism i ss f orl ack ofsubj ect- m att er j uri sdic ti on. Leves ki has pre sente d enough to m ove f or w ar d w ith thi s l i ti gati on. Conseq u en tly, we R EV ERSE both the d istri ct cou rt’s dism i ssa lo fLeves ki ’ s ca se f orl ack ofsubj ect- m att er j ur i sdi ct i o n an d th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s awar d of sa nc ti o ns inth e a m ou n t o f $3 94 ,99 8.3 3 a ga in st L e v e sk i’s c ou n se l, and w e R EMA ND the c as e ba ck to the di str i ct c ourtf or fu rt h er p r o c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is op in ion . C irc u it Ru l e 3 6 wi l la pp l y o n r e man d.

7- 8- 13