T he Hon ora ble Ba rba ra S. Jon es, of th e U nit ed Sta tes Di str ict Co urt * for th e S out her n D ist ric t o f N ew Yor k, sit tin g b y d esi gna tio n. 09- 449 0-c v Ros t v . P fiz er UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

R ULI NGS BYSU

MMA RY ORD ER DO NOT HA VE PRE CED ENT IALEF FEC T . C ITATION T O A SU MMA RY ORD ER FIL ED ON OR AFT ER J ANU ARY 1, 200 7, IS PERMI TTE D A ND IS GOV

ERNED BY F EDE RAL R ULE OF A PPE LLATE P ROC EDURE 32. 1 AND T HIS COURT ’ S L OCA L R ULE 32. 1.1 . WHEN CIT ING A SUM MAR Y ORD ER IN A D OCU

MEN T F ILE D W ITHTH IS COURT , A PARTY MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE F EDE RAL A PPE NDI X O R A N ELE CTR ONI C DATA

BAS E ( WIT H T HE NOTATI ON “ SUM MAR Y O RDE R ”). A

PA RTYCI TIN G A

SU MMA RY ORD ER MUS T S ERV E A CO PY OF IT ON ANYPA RTYNO T R

EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 17 day of November, two thousand and ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 Circuit Judges . 9 10 BARBARA S. JONES, 1 1 District Judge . * 1 2 1 3 14 PETER ROST, 15 1 6 Plaintiff

- Appellant , 17 18 -v.- 09-4490-cv 19 20 PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA, INC., 21 MARIE CAROLINE SAINPY, 22 2 3 Defendants-Appellees , 24 25 KAREN KATEN, JERFFERY KINDLER, 26 HENRY McKINNELL, 27 2 8 Defendants. 2 92 1 FOR APPELLANT: KEVIN MINTZER, Law Office of Kevin 2 Mintzer, P.C., New York, NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEES: JOHN HOUSTON POPE, (Michael A. Kalish, 5 Ronald M. Green, on the brief ), Epstein 6 Becker & Green, P.C., New York, NY. 7 8 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 9 Southern District of New York (Daniels, J .). 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 1 2 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 1 3 AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part . 14 Peter Rost (“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment of the 15 United States District Court for the Southern District of 16 New York (Daniels, J .) entered on September 24, 2009, 17 granting summary judgment on all claims to Defendants18 Appellees Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia, Inc., and Marie Caroline 19 Sainpy. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 21 presented for review. 22 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo . Miller 2 3 v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 24 2003). Summary judgment is proper if “there is no genuine 25 issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is 26 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 56(c)(2).3 1 Appellant argues that the district court erred by 2 granting summary judgment to Appellees on his federal False 3 Claims Act (“FCA”) claim. We disagree. The FCA protects 4 employees who are discriminated against “because of lawful 5 acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or 6 others in furtherance of an action under [the FCA], 7 including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, 8 or assistance in an action filed or to be filed under” the 9 FCA. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Here, Appellant presents no 10 evidence that he took any action relevant under the FCA 11 until he filed his qui tam action in June 2003. For 12 substantially the reasons set forth by the district court, 13 Appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case that 14 the adverse employment actions taken against him were 15 causally connected to his qui tam action. Accordingly, the 16 district court properly granted summary judgment to 17 Appellees on Appellant’s FCA claim. 18 Appellant also argues that the district court erred by 19 granting summary judgment to Appellees on his claims under 20 the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act 21 (“CEPA”) and New Jersey common law. The district court 22 apparently misunderstood the scope of CEPA; it examined4 1 whether Appellant made disclosures to “a supervisory or 2 public body.” Rost v. Pfizer, Inc. , 2009 WL 3097231, at *4 3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009). In fact, CEPA protects employees 4 who disclose information “to a supervisor or to a public 5 body.” N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(a). Because Appellant alleges that 6 he made disclosures to Sainpy and other supervisors within 7 Pfizer, New Jersey law may recognize that Appellant engaged 8 in protected activity beginning in Fall 2002 or Spring 2003. 9 We express no view on whether summary judgment is 10 appropriate on Appellant’s New Jersey state law claims at 11 this time. Instead, we reverse summary judgment on the 12 state law claims and remand to allow the district court to 13 revisit whether Rost has raised a genuine issue of material 14 fact on those claims. At oral argument, the parties agreed 15 that the only basis for federal jurisdiction in this case is 16 federal question jurisdiction, and not diversity 17 jurisdiction. Thus, the district court may also consider 18 whether to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 19 over the pendent state law claims so that they may be 20 brought in New Jersey state court. 21 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 22 court is hereby AFFIRMED in part as to Appellant’s FCA claim5 1 and REVERSED and REMANDED in part as to Appellant’s New 2 Jersey state law claims. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7