N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES e x re l. GR EGOR Y DAVIDOV, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. NHIC C ORPOR

A T ION, a c orporation othe r, FKA Nationa l He rita ge Insura nc e C om pa ny , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56462 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-03287-DSF-R Z M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED NOV 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : PREGER SON a nd TR OTT, C irc uit Judge s and STAFFOR D, *** Se nior Distric t Judge . Gre gory Davidov (“ Davidov” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his qui ta m a c tion a ga inst NHIC for la c k of subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Re vie wing the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l de novo a nd the distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t for c le ar e rror, we a ffirm . A-1 Ambulanc e Se r

v ., Inc . v . C

alifornia , 202 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th C ir. 2000). The a lle gations in Da

vidov’ s qui ta

m c om pla int a re ne arly ide ntic a l to the a lle gations in his 2004 suit a ga inst NHIC . KGV’ s 2004 c om pla int a nd Da v idov’ s c urre nt qui ta

m c om pla int both alle ge tha

t , sta rting in 2000, NHICunla w fully pa id billions of dolla

rs to diffe re nt provide rs for the sa m e proc e dure s. B oth c om pla ints m a inta in tha

t, be twe e n

April a n d August, 2003, NHIC stoppe d e nforc ing ove rutiliz a tion sa fe g ua

rds. NHIC ’ s brie f c o nta ins a c ha rt of at le a st 15 insta

nc e s whe re the te x t of KGV’ s 2004 c om pla int is ide ntic a l or ne a

rly ide ntic a l to Davidov’ s c urre nt FAC . Sinc e Davidov’ s qui ta m a lle gat ions a

re ne arly ide ntic a l to his 2004 alle gat ions, thedistric t c ourt prope rly found the prior public disc losure ba r a pplie s. Se e 31 U.S.C . § 3730(e )(4)(A)(I); U.S. e x re l. Biddle

v . Bd. of Truste e s of Le land Stanford, J

r. Univ . , 161 F.3d 533, 541 (9th C ir. 1998).

*** The Honora

ble W illia m H. Sta fford, Jr., Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de signa tion. 2Davidov c annot show dire c t a nd inde pe nde nt knowle dge , be c a use his a lle gations a

re ba se d on sta

t e m e nts m a de by

NHIC e m

ploy e e s. The re fore , he c annot sa tisfy the “ origina l sourc e ” e xc e ption. Se e 31 U.S.C . § 3730(e )(4)(B ); Unite d State s v . N orthrop C orp. , 5 F.3d 407, 411 (9th C ir. 1993); U.S. e x re l. De v lin v . State

of C al. , 84 F.3d 358, 360 (9th C i r. 1996). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de nie d Da vidov opportunity

to a m e nd his c om

pla int. The re is no e vide nc e tha t an opportunity

to am e nd would c ure the de fe c ts in Da vidov’ s c om

pla i nt. Se e Salame h v . Tarsadia Hote l , 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th C ir. 2013) c e rt. de nie d , 134 S. C t. 1322 (2014). AFFIRM E D.

3