N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A e x re l. STEVEN M ATESKI,

Pla i ntiff,
and STEVEN M ATESKI, Plaintiff-R e lator-Appe lla nt, v. R AYTHEON C OM PANY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-56320 D.C . No. 2:06-c v-03614-ODW -KS
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 Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2018 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , M c KEOW

N, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. R e lator Ste ve n M a te ski worke d for De fe n da nt R aythe on C om

pa ny from 2002 to 2006. The

re a fte r, he file d this a c tion unde r the Fa lse C la im s Ac t (" FC A" ), 

# FIL ED DEC 11 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.a lle ging tha

t R ay the on re c e ive d

pa ym e nts from

the Unite d Stat e s through a sc he m e of fa l se ly c la im ing c om

plia nc e with a

pplic a ble c ontra c ts re late d to a

se nsor for a
sate llite sy ste m

and c ove ring up R aythe on’ s non-c om plia nc e . The Unite d State s inve stiga te d R e l a tor’ s c l a im s for se ve ra l y e ars but de c ide d not to interve n e . Afte r a re m and from

this c ourt, Unite d State s e x re l. M at e ski v. R aythe o n C o., 816 F.3d 565 (9th C i r. 2016), whic h re je c te d the ground on whic h the distric t c ourt ha d dism isse d the 134-pa g e fourth a m e n de d c om

pla int, the distric t c ourt a ga in dism isse d tha

t c om p la int, without pre

judic e , but on diffe re nt grounds: fai lure to
a lle ge fa lsity

and la c k of a c ohe re nt a

nd c o nc ise ple a ding. R e l a tor file d a nine -pa ge fifth a

m e nde d c om

pla int, whic h the distric t c ourt dismisse d with pre j udic e for fa ilure to ple a d fa lsity and fa i lure to ple a d m a te ria lity . R e lat or tim e ly
a ppe a ls. R e vie wing de novo, Lloy d v. C VB Fin. C orp., 811 F.3d 1200, 1205 (9th C ir. 2016), we a ffirm
. Unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 8(a ), the fa c tua l a lle gations in a
c om pla i nt, a c c e pte d a s true , m ust sta te a c l a im for re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e . Ashc roft v. Iqba l, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In a ddition, for a lle gations of fraud, inc luding FC A c la im s, Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 9(b) re q

uire s tha t the
a lle gations beple a de d with pa rtic ula rity . Ebe id e x re l. Unite d State s v. Lungwitz , 616 F.3d 993, 996 (9th C ir. 2010). " Ave rm e nts of fra ud m u st be a c c om

pa nie d by
2the w ho, wha t, whe n, whe re , a

nd how of them isc onduc t c ha rge d." Ve s s v. C iba
Ge igy C orp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th C ir. 2003) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). Am ong the e le m e nts tha t a re lator m ust show to e sta

blish a n FC A c la im
are (1) a fa lse sta t e m e nt or fra

udule nt c ourse of c onduc t (2) tha t is m a te ria l to the gove rnm e nt’ s de c ision to pa y . Unite d Stat e s e x re l . R ose v. Ste p he ns Inst., No. 17- 15111, 2018 W

L 6165627, a

t *4 (9th C ir. Nov. 26, 2018). Unde r that sta

nda rd, the fifth a

m e nde d c om

p la int fa ils to sa

tisfy the pa rtic u la rity re q uire m e nt with re spe c t, at le a st, to the" what," " whe n," and " h ow" of the a lle ge dly

fa lse c la im s. As one e xam ple , in pa ra gra ph 9(a ) R e lator a lle ge s tha t R ay the o n " fa i l e d to pe rform c om ple te te sts a

nd re te sts of c om

pone nt pa rts a nd of
a sse m ble d ha rdware i n viola

tion of" two c o n tra c tua l re quire m e nts. W hic h te sts? W hic h c om

pone nt pa rts? W e re no te sts done , or we re the y done inc om

p l e te ly ? The a lle gat ions c ove r the p e riod 2002 to 2010; without knowing whic h te s ts a nd
a pproxim a te l y

whe n the y

we re pe rform e d , R ayt

he on doe s not ha

ve e nough inform a t ion to de fe nd a ga inst thec la im s. Sim ila rly , with re spe c t to m a te ria lity , the fifth a m e nde d c om

pla int is
wanting unde r the " de m anding" sta nda rd e sta blishe d by the Supre m e C ourt. Unive rsa l He a lth Se rvs., Inc . v. Unite d State s e x re l. Esc o ba r, 136 S. C t. 1989,

32002–03 (2016). Without m ore pa rtic ula rity re ga rding the fa lse c la im s, we c annot
a sse ss whe the r nonc om

plia nc e wa s m a te ria l or m inor. Ac c ordingly , we hold tha t the fifth a

m e nde d c om

p la int doe s not m e e t

the de m ands of R

ule 9(b). R e lator ha s not sought, e ithe r in the distric t c ourt or he re , le ave to file a

sixth a m e nde d c om

pla int. In vie w of our disposition of the c a se , we ne e d not a ddre ss R e lator’ s re que st for re a ssignm e nt to a diffe re nt judge
. AFFIRM E D.

4