2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-5-2009 

# Arnold v . C M C E nginee ring P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1617

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Arno ld v . C MC E n gine e r in g " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1280. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1280

### - 1- P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 1617

_____________ T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T M E NT OF T R A N S P O R T A T IO N , e x re l. A U G U S T W . A R N O L D ,

an i ndi vi dual

v. CM C E N G I N EER I N G ; ER D M A N A N TH O N Y A SSO CI A TES, IN C .; L . R O B E R T K IM B A L L & A S S O C IA T E S ; M
. A. BE E CH ; M AC KI N E NGI NE E RI NG; M CT I S H, KUN KEL & A S S OCI ATE S ; M I CHAEL B AKER, J R. , I NC;

S A I C O N S U L T IN G E N G IN E E R S , IN C ; VE E NGI NEE RI NG, I NC.

A ugus tW
. A r nol d, A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. C i v. N o. 03- cv- 1580) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL
. L anca s t er

_____________ A r gued J anuary6, 2009H onor abl e J ohn R

. Padova, D i s t r i ctJ udge fo r t he U ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i c t Cou r t f

o r t h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c t o f Pe n n s y l v a n i a , s i t t i ng by d e s ig n a tio n .



### - 2- Be f o r e : F UE NT E S a n d F I S HE R, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s a n d P ADOVA , *

D i s t r i ctJ udge ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay5, 2009 ) J on Pushi ns ky( A r gued) 1808 L aw & Fi nance B ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant E fr em M
. G r ai l ( A r gued) C ol i n E
. W r abl ey Re e d Smi t h LLP 435 Si xt h A venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t orneys f

or App el l ee Mi cha elB aker, Jr. , I nc. J ohn G

. E bken ( A r gued) E u g e n e A . G io tto Jo h n R
. L ea thers Buch a na n, I ng e r s ol l , & Roone yPC O n e O x fo rd C en tr e 40 Fl oor th Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t orneys f

or App el l ee L

. R ob ert

K i m ba l l& A ssoci ates , I nc. J onathan K

. H ol l i n ( A r gued) Paul A

. L ogan P o we l l , Tr a c h t ma n , Lo g a n , Ca r r l e a n d Lo mb a r d o , P
. C. 475 A l l endal e R oad K i ng of Prus s i a, PA 19406 A t t or neys f

orC M CE ngi neer i ng and E r dm an A nthony A s s oci at es , I

nc.

### - 3- I r a L. Podhei s er Burn s , W h i t e & Hi c k t o n , LLC FourN or t hs hor e C ent er 106 I s abel l a St r eet Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15212 A t t or neys f

orM acki n E ngi neer i ng, I

nc. B r adfor d D or r ance Kee f e rW o o d Al l e n & Ra h a l , LLP 210 W al nutSt r eet P. O

. B ox 11963 H arr i s bur g, PA 17108- 1963 A t t or ney f

orV E E ngi neer i ng, I

nc. S tev e n D . Irw in D avi d V

. W ei cht Le e c h Ti s h ma n Fi s c a l d o & La mpl , LLC C i t i zens B ank B ui l di ng, 30th Fl oor 525 W i l l i am P enn Pl ace Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 A t t or neys f

orMcTis h, Kunkel

& Ass oci at es J ames R. H anke B ever l yA

. B l ock S h e r r a r d , Ge r ma n & K e l l y , P
. C. 28t h Fl oor , T w o PN C Pl aza 620 L i ber t yA venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 A t t or neys f

orSA I C ons ul t i ng E ngi neer

s , I nc. J as on M
. Y arbr ough T hom as A

. B err et J es s i ca R. Q ui nn- H ogan M e y e r, U n k o v ic & S c o tt 1300 O l i verB ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 A t t or neys f

orM

. A

. B eec h C har l es W
. Scarbor ough ( A r gued) T hom as M
. B ondy

### - 4- A m yE as t on D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on, R oom 7244 9 5 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D
. C

. 20530- 3001 A m i cus C uri ae for the C ou rt

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: I n t hi s qui t am act i on, fi l ed byA ugus tA rno ld, the R el at or a lleg e s th a t th e D e f

e n d a n ts, c o n su ltan ts w h o p ro v id e d se rv ice s to the P en n sy lvan ia D ep artm en t of T ran sp o rt ati o n (“P en n D O T ”), f a lsif ied th e ir c re d e n tials to q u a lifyf o r h ig h e r p a yra tes . A rn o ld cont en d s tha t , as a r es ul t , t he cons ul t ant s defr auded the fe der al governm ent , w hi ch funded the contr act s ati s s ue, i n vi ol at i on of the F a lse C l ai m s A ct (“FC A ”), 31 U
. S

. C

. § 372 9. O n m oti on s to d ism iss , the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t c laim s p re se n ted to sta te a g e n c i e s t h a t d i s b u r s e f e d e r a l f u n d s a r e n o t a c t i o n a b l e u n d e r t he F C A , and becau se A rnol d fai l ed to al l ege thatt he co nsult ants ’ fal se c laim s w e re p r e s e n te d to o r a p p ro v e d b yth e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, as oppos ed t o t he s t at e age ncy , theyw er e notact i onabl e. W h i l e t h i s a p p e a l wa s p e n d i n g , t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C ou rtdecided A l l i son E ng i ne C o. v. U nit ed Stat es ex rel

. S and ers , 128 S. C t
. 212 3 ( 2008) , w hi ch hel d thatt he met hod byw hi ch f e d e ra l f u n d s a re d isb u rse d b yf e d e ra l g ra n tee s is r e le v a n t to d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a d e f e n d a n t p o ss e ss e d th e re q u isite in ten t to defraud t he fe deral go vernm ent as requi red by t he FC A

. B ecause t he D i s t r i ctC our t di d not have t he benef i t of A l l i s on E ngi ne w hen i t rul ed on t he i ns t ant m at t er , w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand forfur t her proceed i ng s.

I.

### - 5- A ugus t A rno ld i s a r et i r ed PennD O T empl oy ee. W hi l e at PennD O T , one of A r nol d’ s dut i es w as t o conductfi eld audi t s of cons ul t ant s w ho pr ov ide d engi neer i ng and i ns pect i on s ervi ces on r oad an d b r i dge pr oj ect s forPennD O T
. D efe ndant s M i chae l Ba k e r , J r . , I n c . ; L. Ro b e r tKi mb a l l & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . ; CM C E n g in e e rin g ; an d E rd m a n A n th o n yA ss o c iate s, In c . (co llec tiv e ly
“ c o n su ltan ts” ) w e re a m o n g th e e n g in e e rin g c o n su ltan ts su b jec t to th e a u d it, w h ic h sp a n n e d f ro m 2 0 0 0 u n til 2 0 0 2 . T h e a u d its uncover ed s i gni fi ca n tover char ges t o PennD O T fors ervi ces perform ed b yi nd i vidual s w ho w orked o n b ehalf of the co nsult ants
. Spe ci fi cal l y , t he audi t s di s cl os ed thatthe cons ul t ant s s ubm i t t ed b ill s f o r se rv ice s b yin d iv id u a ls w h o d id n o t p o ss e ss th e re q u isite cr edent i al s to justi fyt hei rhour l ypayr at es undert he cons ul t i ng c o n tra c ts a t issu e . A rn o ld a lleg e s th a t P e n n D O T o f f icia ls know i n g l yo v e rp a i d th e c o n s u l t a n t s b e c a us e of s y s t emi c corrupt i on, w hi ch i ncl uded pr ohi bi t ed gi ft

- gi vi ng i n excha nge fo r t he hi r i ng a n d p a ym e n t o f

u n q u a lifie d c o n tra c t p e rso n n e l. A t lea st e ig h ty per centof PennD O T ’ s fundi ng fort he contr act s or i g inated fr om t he Fede ral H i ghw ayA dm i ni s t r at i on, w hi ch i s a br anch of t he U n ite d S ta te s D e p a rt m e n t o f T ra n s p o rt a tio n (“ U .S . D O T ” ). A r nol d’ s di s cl os ur e of t he overpaym ent ul t i m at el y l ed t o an i ndepende ntr evi ew , w hi ch r evea l ed t hat overt w entyper centof the c o n s u l t a n t s e x a mi n e d d u r i n g th e r e v i e w h a d f l a we d c r e d e n t i a l s . As a r es ul t , s om e of the consul t ant s r eturned a port i on of the o v e rp a yme n t s t o Pe n n DO T. I n O ct ober2003, A r nol d, as t he R el ator on be hal f of the fede r al governm ent , fi l ed a qui t am compl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC o ur tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, as s ert i ng cl ai m s agai ns tt he si x cons ul t ant s under t he F C A

. T he compl ai nt a l l e g e d t h a tt h e c o n s u l t a n t s we r e e n g a g e d i n a f r a ud ul e nts c h e me t o obt ai n overpaym ent s for engi neer i ng, i ns pect i on, and cons ul t ant s ervi ces on fede r al l y - funded hi ghw aypr oj ect s admi ni s t er ed by P e n n D O T . T h e U n ite d S ta te s d e c lin e d to in te rv e n e . T he cons ul t ant s m oved t o di s m i s s , ar gui ng, among ot her th in g s, th a t A r n o ld h a d in su f f icie n tlya lleg e d th a t th e c o n su ltan ts had pr es ent ed fa l s e cl ai m s t o t he feder al governm ent
. A s t he r eal par t yi n int er es t , t he fe der al governm entfi l ed tw o St at ement s of

### - 6- In ter e st in th e D istric t C o u rt o p p o sin g th e c o n su ltan ts’ m o tio n s to d ism iss . T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted A rn o ld lea v e to a m e n d h is com plai nt tw i ce, and each ti m e t he co nsult ants renew ed their m o tio n s to d is m is s . O n February7, 2007, the D i s t r i ctC o u rt g r ant ed the c o n su ltan ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed thatthe FC A i m pos es l i abil i t yonl yon tho se w ho defr aud the fe der al governm ent , fur t hernot i ng that “[t ] he s i ne qua non of [t he FC A ] i s Feder al governm ent i nv ol ve menti n p a y i ng , a pp r ov i ng , or a l l owi ng fa l s e c l a i ms. ” U
. S. D ep’ tof Tra ns p. ex re l

. A r nol d v. C M C E ng’ g, N o. 03- 1580, 2007 W L 4 4 2 2 3 7 , at *4 (W

. D
. P a . F eb

. 7 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatA r nol d “ha[ d] notes t abl i s h ed that anydefe ndant pr e s e nt e d a fa l s e c l a i m t o t he [f ] e de r a l go ve r nmen t , made a fal se s t at ementi n or dert o geta fa l s e cl ai m pai d o ral l ow ed byt he [f] eder al governm ent , orcons pi r ed t o geta fa l s e cl ai m pai d or al l ow ed byt he [f

] eder al governm ent
. ” I d. at*1. T h e D i s t r i ct C our tfur t herhel d t hatbeca us e the FC A r equi r es thatthe fr audul ent cl ai m be pr es ent ed t o t he fe der al governm ent , nota gr ant ee of fede r al funds , i tw as i r r el evantt hatPennD O T r ece i ves s ubs t ant i al f u n d in g f ro m U .S . D O T . Id . at * 3 . T h e D istric t C o u rt sim ilarly r ul e d t h a tAr n o l d ’ s a l l e g a t i o n th a tP e n n DOT i s a n a g e n to f U
. S. DOT wa s i n s u f

f i c i e n t , a s wa s h i s a l l e g a t i on t ha t t h e f a l s e c l a i ms w er e pr es ent ed t o t he fede r al governm entw hen Feder al H i ghw ay A dm i ni s t r at i on i ns pect or s r evi ew ed PennD O T pr oj ects i t es and lo g s. Id . A rn o ld f

iled a tim e lyN o tice o f

A p p e a l. A s w e pr evi ous l ynot ed, w hi l e thi s appea l w as pendi ng t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Courtdeci ded A l l i s on E ngi ne C o. v. U ni t ed S tat es ex r el

. Sander s , 128 S. C t
. 2123 ( 2008) , i n w hi ch a unani m ous C our thel d t hatthe fundi ng m echani s m byw hi ch fr audul entcl ai m s pr om ptthe di s bur s ementof fe der al funds vi a a fede r al gr ant ee i s i ns t ruct i ve i n det erm i ni ng w hethera r el at orhas s t a t e d a c l a i m u n d e rth e F CA

. Fol l ow i ng t hi s deci s i on, the cons ul t ant s as ked thi s C our tt o s um m ar i l y affi r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s di s m i s s al of thi s cas e. W e deni ed the mot i on. II.

### - 7- T h e D istri ct C o u rth ad su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n u n d er 28 U
. S. C

. § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C

. § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s or der g r a n t i n g t h e c o n s u l t a n t s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . S a n t i a g o v . G MAC M or t gage G r oup, I nc. , 4 1 7 F. 3d 384, 386 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. W hen r evi ew i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a claim under F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P ro c e d u r e 1 2 (b )(6 ), w e a c c e p t as tru e a ll w e ll-p le d f

a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t an d a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s t hatcan be dr aw n fr om them, and w e aff i r m t he or derof di s m i s s al onl yi f the pl eadi ng does notpl aus i bl ys ugges tan e n title m e n t to re lie f

. W ilk e rs o n v . N e w M e d ia T e c h . C h a rt e r S c h ., Inc
. , 5 2 2 F
. 3 d 3 1 5 , 3 2 1 -22 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). III . O rig in a llye n a c ted in 1 8 6 3 , the F C A is th e m o st f re q u e n tly us ed of a handful of curr ent l aw s cr eat i ng a form of civil act i on know n as “qui t am. ” V t
. A gency of N atur al R es . v. U ni t ed St at es ex r el

. St evens , 529 U
. S. 765, 768 ( 2000)

. “Q ui t am i s s hor tfort he L a tin p h ra se q u i tam p ro d o m in o re g e q u a m p ro se ip so in h a c p a rte s equi tur , w hi ch means ‘ w ho pur s ues thi s act i on on ourL or d t he K ing ’s b e h a lf a s w ell as h is ow n . ’” Id

. at 76 8 n . 1
. In m o d ern p r a c t i c e , “ q u i t a m a c t i o n s a r e b r o u g h t b y p r i v a t e p l a i n t i f f s on behal f of t he G overnm ent i n excha nge for s om e por t i on o f a ny r es ul t i ng damages aw ar d. ” R o dr i guez v. O urL adyof Lourde s M e d . C tr., 5 5 2 F .3 d 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 n .1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). T h o se p riv a te p lain tiff s a re re f e rre d to a s “ re lato rs.” U n ited S ta te s e x re l. S ch m idt v. Z im m er, I n c., 3 8 6 F
. 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). U ndert he Fal s e C lai m s A ct , anyper s on i s l i abl e t o the U ni t ed St at es governm entfora ci vi l penal t yw ho: (1 ) k n o w in g lyp re se n ts, o r c a u se s to b e p re se n ted , to an offi cerorempl oy ee of the U ni t ed St at es G overnm entor a m ember of t he A r m ed For ces of the U ni t ed St at es a fa l s e or fr audul entcl ai m forpaym ent o r a p p ro v a l; ( 2) know i ngl y m akes , us es , or caus es t o be made or

### - 8- u sed , a fa l s e r ecor d ors t at ementt o geta fa l s e or fr audul entcl ai m pai d orappr ov ed bythe G o v e rn m e n t; ( 3) cons pi r es t o defr aud the G overnm entbyget t i ng a f a ls e o r f ra u d u le n t c la im a llo w e d o r p a id

. . . . 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 2 9 (a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). B eca us e the w or d “pr es ent s ” i s m i s s i ng fr om §§ 3729( a) ( 2) a n d (a )(3 ), th e re h a s b e e n sig n if ica n t d e b a te a b o u t w h e th e r th e re is a “ p re se n tm e n t” re q u ire m e n t in th o se su b se c tio n s. F o r e x a m p le, in U n ited S tate s e x re l. T o tten v . B o m b a rd ier C o rp ., th e D .C . C irc u it h e ld th a t § § 3 7 2 9 (a )(2 ) a n d (a )(3 ) d o re q u ire d ire c t p re se n tm e n t to t he fe deral go vernm ent. 38 0 F
. 3d 48 8 (D

. C

. C i r. 20 0 4 ); se e al so U ni t e d St a t e s e x r e l

. D RC , I nc . v. Cus t e rB a t t l e s , LLC , 47 2 F. Supp. 2d 787, 790 ( E
. D
. V a. 2007) ( endor s i ng T ott en ’s hol di ng th a t § 3 7 2 9 (a )(2 ) re q u ire s p re se n tm e n t); U n ited S ta te s e x re l. A t ki ns v. M cI nt eer , 345 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1304- 05 ( N
. D
. A l a. 2 0 0 4 ) (ho lding that § 3 7 2 9 (a)(3) r eq u ir es pre sen tm en t)

. H o w ev er, in U n ited S tate s e x re l. S a n d e rs v . A lli so n E n g in e C o ., th e S ix th C i r cui thel d t hat§§ 3729( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 3) do notrequi r e di r ect pr es entm ent
. 471 F. 3d 610, 614- 15 ( 6th C i r . 2006) , vaca t ed by128 S

. C t
. 21 23 (2008 ); see al so U nit ed S t at es ex rel

. M i kes v. St raus, 8 4 F. Supp. 2d 427, 432 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 1999) ( excl udi ng the “pr es entm ent ” r equi r ementfr om t he el ement s of §§ 3729( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 3) )

. See gene r al l yU ni t ed St at es ex r el

. Far m erv. C i t yof H ous t on, 523 F. 3d 333 , 3 3 8 ( 5th C i r . 2008) ( di s cus s i ng t he u n se ttl e d n a tu re o f

w h e th e r th e r e is a p re se n tm e n t re q u ire m e n t in § 3729( a) ( 2) butdeci di ng t he ca s e on otherg rou n d s)

. T he “pr es entm ent ” r equi r ementcompel s t he r el at or t o es t abl i s h t hatt he d e f e n d a n ts p re se n ted th e f

a lse c laim to th e f

e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t to i nduce pa ym entbas ed on thatfr audul entcl ai m . T o r es ol ve the confl i ct betw een the C our t s of A ppeal s , t he Supr eme C our tgr ant ed c e rt io ra ri in A llis o n E n g in e . I n A l l i s on E ngi ne, t he U ni t ed St at es N avyhad contr act ed w i t h tw o shipbuil ders, bo t h pri vate com pan i es, t o b uil d d estroy ers . T he s hi py ar ds t hen s ubcontr act ed w i t h a company , A l l i s on E ngi ne, t o bui l d t he gene r at or s fort he s hi ps . A l l i s on E n g ine then

### - 9- su b c o n tra c ted w ith v a rio u s o th e r c o m p a n ies to b u ild a n d a ss e m b le componentpar t s of the ge n erat or s . E m pl oy ees of one of the s ubcontr act or s s ued under the F C A , al l egi ng thatthe i nvoi ces su b m itt e d b yth e su b c o n tra c to rs to th e sh ip y a rd s w e re f ra u d u len t. H ow ever , t he r el at or di d not es t abl i s h at t r i al t hatt he i nvoi ces had b ee n su b m itted to the N av y(i

. e., the f ed era l g o v ern m en t)

. T her efor e, t he i s s ue i n A l l i s on E ngi ne w as w hethe r it w as s uffi ci entforan FC A cl ai m th atgovernm entfunds , gi ven t o t he s hi py ar ds byt he N avyi n advanc e an d di s bur s ed bythe s hi py ar ds a t th e ir d isc re tio n w ith o u t f u rth e r f e d e ra l g o ve rn m e n t in v o lv e m e n t, w er e us ed t o payfr audul entcl ai m s . See 128 S. C tat2126- 27. T he Supr eme C our tfi r s t exami ned the s t atut oryl anguage and no t ed that§ 3 72 9(a) (2) requi res t hat t he defe nd ant m ake a f al se s t at ement“t o get ” a f

r audul ent cl ai m pai d bythe governm ent
. T he C our tfound that“t o get ” denot ed i nt entt o induce the fe der al governm entt o paya fa l s e cl ai m . M or eover , the C ou rt n o ted that g e t t i n g a f

r a u d u l e n tc l a i m “ p a i d b y t h e g o v e r n me n t ” i s n o t t h e s a me as get t i ng a fr audul entcl ai m “pai d bygovernm entfun d s . ” I d. at 21 2 8
. Th e Cou r ts p e c i f i c a l l ys t a t e d th a t“ [ e ] l i mi n a t i n g th[e] e lem e n t o f

in ten t . .
. w o u ld e x p a n d th e F C A w e ll b e y o n d its i nt ended r ol e of c om bat i ng ‘ fr aud aga i ns tthe G overnm ent
. ’ ” I d. (qu ot i ng R ai nw at erv. U ni t ed St at es , 356 U
. S. 590, 592 ( 1958 )). If the sco p e o f the F C A w as n o t li m it ed in this m an n er, th e C o u rt speculat ed t hat l i abil i t y un der the F C A cou l d att ach to fraud ag ai nst anyi ns t i tut i on t hatr ece i ves atl eas ts om e fe der al gr ant s . I d. Si mi l a r l y , § 3 7 2 9 ( a ) ( 3 ) ma k e s l i a b l e a n y p e r s on w ho “cons pi r es t o defr aud the G overnm en t b y get t i ng a fa l s e or fr audul entcl ai m ” pai d. L i ke § 3729( a) ( 2) , t he Supr eme C our tr ead t hi s s ubs ect i on t o r equi r e thatt he cons pi r at or s i nt end t o defr aud the fede r al governm ent , r athert han cons pi r i ng t o defr aud another ent i t yw hi ch us es ordi s bur s es governm entfunds

. Id. at2130. A g a in , the C o u rt n o te d th a t itw a s n o t im p ly in g a “ p re se n tm e n t” r equi r ementi nt o § 3729( a) ( 3) , butr atherr equi r i ng t hata r el at or es t abl i s h t hatt he conspira t or s agr eed thatthe fa l s e s t at ement “w o u ld h av e a m ateria l eff ec t on the [ fe d era l] G o v ern m en t’ s deci s i on t o payt he fa l s e orfr audul entcl ai m . ” I d. at2130- 31. A l t hough t he C our t hel d thatt her e i s no di r ectpr es entm ent

### - 10- r equi r ementi n §§ 3729( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 3) , the C our tdes cr i bed i ndi r ectm ethods of fe der al governmenti nvol vementi n t he p a ym e n t o f f

ra u d u len t c laim s tha t c o u ld still m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e F C A

. W ith o u t q u e stio n , A lli so n E n g in e c a teg o ric a lly pr ecl udes l i abi l i t yunder the FC A w hen fr audul entcl ai m s i nduce p riv a te e n titie s to d isb u rse f e d e ra l f u n d s o v e r w h ich th e p riv a te ent i t yhas compl et e contr ol

. In ot herw or ds , i f the fe der al g o v e rn m e n t p ro v id e s m o n e yin a lu m p su m to a g r a n tee , an d is t h e r e a f t e ru n i n v o l v e d i n t h e d i s bu r s e me n to f t h e f u n d s , t h e F CA d o e s n o t ap p ly

. H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt lef t o p e n th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t, if th e f ed era l go v ern m e n t is so m eh o w inv o lved in the g ran tee’s d isbu rsem en t o f fe d era l m o n ey , F C A li ab il itym ayex ist

. T h e C o u rt us ed t he fol l ow i ng hypot het i cal t o expl ai n: a s ubcontr act orcr eat es an i nvoi ce that r el i es on a fa l s e s t at ement , and the s ubcontr act or s ubm i t s t hati nvoi ce t o the pr i m e contr act or ; t he pr i m e contr act or r el i es on t he s ubcontr act or ’ s i nvoi ce t o gener at e i t s ow n i nvoi ce, w h ich th e p rim e c o n tra c to r su b m its to th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. U nd er this scenari o, t he sub con t ract or i ntent i on al l yu se d a fal se c laim to in d u c e p a ym e n t b yth e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, alb e it i ndi r ect l y . I d. at2130. T her efor e, t he s ubcontrac tor’s ac t i ons wo u l d f a l l wi t h i n t h e a mb i to f

th e F CA

. O f pa rt icular no te is the m an n er w ith w h ich th e C o u rt di s t i n g u i s h e d t h e f

a c t s o f Al l i s o n En g i n e , e mph a s i z i n g th a tthe gr ant ee of

fede r al funds w as a pr i vat e, notpubl i c, en ti ty
. For exampl e, t he C our ts t at ed, “[ i] f a subc ont r act ororanother defe ndant m akes a fa l s e s t at ementt o a pr i vat e ent i t yand does not i nt end the G overnm entt o r el yon t hatfal s e s t at ement as a condi t i on of paym ent , t he st at ementi s notm ade w i t h the purpos e of i nduci ng paym entof a f

al s e cl ai m ‘ bythe G overnm ent
. ’” Id. at2130 ( emphasi s added)

. Si m i l ar l y , t he C our tnot ed, “[r ] ecogni zi ng a caus e of act i on undert he FC A forfr aud di r ect ed atpr i vat e ent i t i es w oul d t hr eat en t o t r ans form the FC A i nt o an al l

- purpos e ant i fr aud s t atut e. ” I d. ( emp h asis added)

. W i t h r egar d t o t he cons pi r acy p ro n g o f th e F C A , the C o u rt sta ted th a t “[ u ]n d e r [ § 3 7 2 9 (a )(3 )], it is no t eno u g h fo r a p lai n tiff to sh o w that the a ll eg ed co n sp ir ators a g re e d u p o n a f

ra u d sc h e m e th a t h a d th e e f f e c t o f c a u sin g a p riv a te ent i t y to m ake pa ym ent s us i ng m oneyobt ai ned fr om t he G o v ern m en t. Instea d , it m u st b e sho w n that the c o n s p irators inten d ed ‘t o d ef

rau d the G o v ern m en t. ’” Id

. (em p h asis ad d ed ). In

### - 11- ot herw or ds , i ti s not s uffi ci ent fora pl ai nt i ff t o al l ege mer el yt hat t he fa l s e s t at ement’s u se r es ul t ed i n get t i ng pai d w i t h funds tra c e a b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t. R a th e r, a p lain tiff a ss e rtin g a c laim under§§ 3729( a) ( 2) and ( a) ( 3) m us tal l ege thatthe def endant i nt ended t o us e the fa l se r ecor d ors t at ementt o be pai d bythe g o v e r n m e n t , n o tb y a n y o t h e rp a r t y. I ti s uncl earhow m uch, i f atal l , the di ffe r ence betw een p u b li c g ran tee v ersu s p ri v ate g ran tee sh o u ld d ri v e a co u rt ’s anal y s i s . R egar dl es s , w e bel i eve thatt hi s di s t i nct i on fur t her s uppor t s ourhol di ng t hat A l l i s on E ngi ne cas t s doubt on t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d e c isio n to c a teg o ric a llye x c lu d e f a lse c laim s m a d e to sta te t r ans por t at i on agenc i es , w hi ch a re funded i n l ar ge partbythe f e d e r a l g o v e r n me n t , f

r o m th e p u r v i e w o f

th e F CA

. Al l i s o n En g i n e d o e s n o tc o n c l us i ve l yde t e r mi ne the o u t c o me o f Ar n o l d ’ s c a s e , b u t i t i s i n s t ru c t i v e . Ex a mi n i n g Ar n o l d ’ s c l a i ms unde rt he rub r i c of

A l l i s on Engi ne , i ti s c l e a rtha tthe mec han i sm o f th e f u n d in g sc h e m e b yw h ich P e n n D O T p a y s its c o n tra c to rs is det erm i nat i ve of w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the claim s w as appr opr i at e. I f the Feder al H i ghw ayA dm i ni s t r at i on w as i nvol ved i n the d isbur s ementof funds fr om PennD O T t o t he c o n s u l t a n t s u p o n s u b m i s s i o n o f th e f r a u d u l e n tc l a i m s i n a n y w a y, A rn o ld ’s c laim s m a yb e a c tio n a b le u n d e r th e F C A a n d it i s p o ss ib le th e co n su lt an ts’ m o ti o n to d ism iss sho u ld h av e b ee n d en ied. In lig h t o f A lli so n E n g in e , the D istric t C o u r t sh o u ld re c o n sid e r its vi ew t hata re lat orcan ne vers ucce s s ful l yal l ege vi ol at i ons of the F C A as theypert ai n to st at e t ransport at i on agen ci es. I V. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed, w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.