UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf §

of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. §

§

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, §

INC.; SCIENCE APPLICATIONS § Case No. 07CV3314 (GBD)

INTERNATIONAL CORP.; §

BOEING, NuSTATS; COMPUTER §

AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, §

INC.; DATASOURCE, INC.; §

GEOSTAATS, INC.; GILSANZ §

MURRAY STEFICEK LLP; HUGHES § APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.'S

ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI; § REPLYTORELATOR’SMEMORANDUM

EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS; § OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO

DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO; § DEFENDANTS’MOTIONSTODISMISS

JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM; §

ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; §

ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN §

CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.; §

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC.; §

S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.; §

SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, §

LLP; TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.; §

UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, §

INC.; WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER §

ASSOCIATES, INC.; AMERICAN §

AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES; §

and UNITED AIRLINES, §

§

Defendants. §

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 1 of 17
i

{D0489151.1}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........................................................................................................ii

I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

II. Relator's Allegations Have Been Publicly Disclosed and Relator is Not an Original

Source of the Allegations in Her Complaint......................................................................1

A. Relator's Allegations Have Been Publicly Disclosed ................................................2

B. Relator Does Not Allege Any Direct or Independent Knowledge and, Therefore,

is Not an Original Source...........................................................................................5

III. Relator's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted ........7

IV. Relator's Complaint Also Must Be Dismissed For Failure to Plead Fraud With

Particularity..........................................................................................................................9

V. Defendants Do Not Believe That Oral Argument is Necessary and Would Oppose

The Introduction of Any Testimony Should the Court Deem Oral Arguments

Necessary ..............................................................................................................................10

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 2 of 17
ii

{D0489151.1}

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

UnitedStatesexrel.HuangyanImport&ExportCorp.v.Nature’sFarmProds.,Inc., No. 00

Civ. 6593(SHS), 2004 WL 74310 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2004)...........................................................2

United States ex rel. Lissack v. Sakura Global Capital Markets, Inc., No. 95 Civ. 1363(BSJ),

2003 WL 21998968 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2003)...............................................................................2

United States ex rel. Dunleavy v. County of Delaware, 123 F.3d 734 (3d Cir. 1997).....................2

United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C.Cir. 1994) ...........2

United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Servs., 163 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1999)...............

..................................................................................................................................................3, 5, 6

United States ex rel. Winslow v. Pepsico, Inc., 2007 WL 1584197 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).................3, 4

United States ex rel, Smith v. Yale University, 415 F.Supp.2d 58 (D.Conn. 2006).........................5

United States ex rel. Alcohol Found., Inc. v. Kalmanovitz Charitable Found., Inc., 186 F.Supp.2d

458 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)........................................................................................................................5

RockwellInt’lCorp.v.UnitedStates, 127 S.Ct. 1397 (2007).........................................................6

United States ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 98 F.Supp.2d 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)......................................7

United States v. Fiske, 968 F.Supp. 1347 (E.D.Ark. 1997).............................................................7

United States ex rel. Capella v. Norden Systems, Inc., No. 3:94-CV-2063(EBB), 2000 WL

1336487 (D.Conn. Aug. 24, 2004) ..................................................................................................8

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)..................................................................8

Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007).......................................................................8

United States ex rel. Walsh v. Eastman Kodak Co., 98 F.Supp.2d 141 (D.Mass. 2000).................9

United States ex rel. Smith v. New York Presbyterian Hosp., No. 06 Civ. 4056(NRB), 2007 WL

2142312 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2007) ..................................................................................................9

Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313 (2d Cir. 1998).......................................................10

World Brilliance Corp. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 342 F.2d 362 (2d Cir. 1965) ..............................10

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 3 of 17
iii

{D0489151.1}

Statutes

False Claims Act ("FCA") 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3731 ......................................................................5

Pleadings/Motions

Applied Research Associates, Inc.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 9(b) (Docket # 14)....................................................................... 1, 2-3, 7

Relator's Mem. of Law in Opp'n. to Defs’MotionstoDismiss(Docket#57).................................

..............................................................................................................................1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Aff.ofWm.DavidByasseeInSupp.ofAppliedResearchAssociates,Inc.’sMot.toDismiss

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), ¶ 4, Ex. A (Docket # 14-3).....................3

Am. Compl., Ex. A (Docket # 8).....................................................................................................3

Aff. of Wm. David Byassee In Supp. of AppliedResearchAssociates,Inc.’sMot.toDismiss

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), ¶ 6, Ex. C, (Docket # 14-5) ...................3

Aff.ofWm.DavidByasseeInSupp.ofAppliedResearchAssociates,Inc.’sMot.toDismiss

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), ¶ 7, Ex. D, (Docket # 14-6)...................3

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 4 of 17
1

{D0489151.1}

I. Introduction

Relator Dr. Judy Wood initiated this action on April 25, 2007 when she filed her

Complaint pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, §§ 3729-33(“FCA”).

Relator’sComplaintassertsthreeCausesofActionagainst27defendants,includingApplied

ResearchAssociates,Incorporated(“Defendants”or“ARA”).OnJanuary23,2008,ARAfileda

Memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss this case in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), and for attorneys’fees under § 3730(d)(4) of the FCA. (Docket #

14)(“Defs.’MotiontoDismiss”).

On February 29, 2008, Relator filed a 44 page Memorandum of Law in Opposition to

Defendants’MotionstoDismiss(Docket # 57), which included over 367 pages of attached

affidavits and exhibits. However,despiteitslength,Relator’sOppositionfailstorefute the legal

argumentscontainedinDefendants’Motion to Dismiss which mandate dismissal of this action.

Specifically,Relator’sclaimsareprecludedbythestatutorypublicdisclosurebar, Relator’s

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Relator’sComplaintfails

to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). Because nothinginRelator’s

Opposition justifies ignoring thelegaldeficienciesofherComplaint,Relator’sComplaintshould

be dismissed in its entirety.

II. Relator’sAllegations Have Been Publicly Disclosed and Relator is Not an Original

Source of the Allegations in Her Complaint

EveryallegationinRelator’sComplaintwas taken from the public domain and

contributes nothing to the widely disclosed allegations that the National Institute of Standards

andTechnology’s(“NIST”)final report on the September 11 tragedies, NCSTAR 1, is

fraudulent and that aircraft collisions did not cause the collapse of the WTC Towers. As set forth

in detail in ARA's Motion to Dismiss, pp. 5-16, because Relator’sallegationshavebeenpublicly

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 5 of 17
2

{D0489151.1}

disclosed and Relator is not an original source, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

pursuanttothepublicdisclosurebar,§3730(e)(4)(A),andRelator’sComplaintmustbe

dismissed.

A. Relator’sAllegationsHaveBeenPublicly Disclosed

Relator asserts that her claims are not barred under the FCA because the allegations

contained in her Complaint have not been publicly disclosed.Opp’n18.However,Relator’s

interpretation of the public disclosure bar misconstrues both the FCA and relevant case law. A

prior disclosure need not reveal a relator’sexactallegationsfor the public disclosure bar to apply

and preclude therelator’sclaims. See, e.g. United States ex rel. Huangyan Import & Export

Corp.v.Nature’sFarmProds.,Inc., No. 00 Civ. 6593(SHS), 2004 WL 74310, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.

Jan.15,2004).Rather,“aqui tam action is barred where there is enough information in the

publicdomaintoexposethefraud.”Id. (citations omitted). The public disclosure bar applies if

“‘either the allegations offraudortheelementsoftheunderlyingtransaction’arepublicly

disclosed.” United States ex rel. Lissack v. Sakura Global Capital Markets, Inc., 2003 WL

21998968, *10, No. 95 Civ. 1363(BSJ) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2003) (citing United States ex rel.

Dunleavy v. County of Delaware, 123 F.3d 734, 740 (3d Cir. 1997)).

1

Thus,Relator’sassertion

thather“specificclaimsoffraud”werenotpubliclydisclosedislegally irrelevant.

Relator summarizes her allegations as:“hav[ing] solely to do with fraud arising from the

manner in which NCSTAR 1 was prepared and its willful ignorance of the actual cause; namely

DEW.”Opp’n20.Yet, every essential element of this allegation was publicly disclosed prior to

1 Courts have applied an algebraic formula to determine whether the public disclosure bar

applies.“‘[I]fX+Y=Z,Zrepresentstheallegation of fraud and X and Y represent its essential

elements.’” Lissack, 2003 WL 21998968, * 10 (quoting United States ex rel. Springfield

Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 654 (D.C.Cir. 1994). The public disclosure bar applies

andprecludesarelator’sclaimsifeitherZorthecombinationofXandY(i.e.theessential

elements of the fraudulent transaction) are in the public domain. Id.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 6 of 17
3

{D0489151.1}

the date Relator filed her Complaint. See Defs.’Motion to Dismiss, 7-11. Relator’score

allegation –that NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent –was indisputably publicly disclosed by Dr. Morgan

Reynolds’March8,2007RFC,Dr.Wood’sownMarch16,2007RFC,andvariousnews

stories.2Furthermore, Relator’sallegationsare almost entirely based on information made

publicly available in NCSTAR 1. Finally, Relator’sallegationthatDEW causedthe collapse of

the WTC Towers was in the public domain priortoRelator’sfilingsuit. See Defs.’Motion to

Dismiss 10, Aff., ¶ 6, Ex. C (Docket # 14-5); Aff., ¶ 7, Ex. D (Docket # 14-6). Thus,Relator’s

assertionthatthe“allegationsortransactions”containedinherComplaintwerenotpublicly

disclosed is incorrect.

Furthermore, Relator’srelianceonUnited States ex rel. Winslow v. Pepsico, Inc., 05 Civ.

9274(CLB), 2007 WL 1584197 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2007) is misplaced. Relator apparently

alleges that, under Winslow, the public disclosurebardoesnotapplyunlessarelator’s“specific

claimsoffraud”areinthepublicdomain.Opp’n19.However, Relator misconstrues the court’s

holding in Winslow. The court in Winslow held that the public disclosure bar did not apply on

2

See Aff. of Wm. David Byassee In Supp. of Applied Research Associates,Inc.’sMot.to

Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), ¶ 4, Ex. A, p. 6 (Docket # 14-3)

(allegingthatNCSTAR1wasfraudulentbecause“NIST relied on obviously fraudulent data

(e.g.fakedvideos)”depictingaircraftstrikingtheWTCTowers); Compl., Ex. A, p. 43 (Docket #

8)(assertingNCSTAR1was“fraudulent,misleading,ordeceptive”becauseiterroneously

concluded that aircraft impacts, rather than DEWs, caused the collapse of the WTC Towers); See

Aff. of Wm. David Byassee in Supp. of Applied Research Associates, Inc.'s Reply to Relator's

Mem. of Law in Opp'n. to Defs.' Motions to Dismiss ("Byassee Aff.") (filed concurrently

herewith), ¶ 4, Ex. A, Elaine Jarvik, BYU Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC,

DESERET MORNING NEWS, Nov. 10, 2005, available at

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/0,5223,635160132,00.html (“Previous

investigations,including... NIST[’s],ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on

Sept.11,2001,totheTwinTowers.[...]Theofficialexplanation–that fires caused structural

damage that caused the buildings to collapse –can’tbebackedupbyeithertestingorhistory”);

see also United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Servs., 163 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1999)

(relator’sclaimswereprecludedwhererelatorhimselfhaddisclosedhisallegationstothenews

media prior to filing suit).

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 7 of 17
4

{D0489151.1}

the facts of that case because the information in the public domain was insufficient to trigger the

public disclosure bar. Winslow, WL 1584197 at *6. In Winslow, the relator filed an FCA action

alleging that Pepsico fraudulently avoided paying import duties by improperly classifying soft

drink concentrate imported from Ireland. Id. at *1. Prior to the date the relator filed his

complaint,theUnitedStatesCustomsandBorderProtection(“Customs”)sentPepsicoaformal

Request for Information requesting a sample of the imported concentrate as well as certain

information relating to the concentrate. Id. at *6. However, the Request for Information

contained no suggestion of impropriety on the part of Pepsico. Id. Pepsico asserted that

Winslow’sclaimswerebarred becausethe Request for Information publicly disclosed

Winslow’sallegationsof fraud. Id. at *5. However, the court held that the public disclosure bar

did not apply because the Request for Information contained “no allegations or suggestions of

fraud.”Id at *6. “Themererequestforasampleoftheimportedsubstance,withoutmore,isnot

sufficienttoinformanybodyofafraudbeingimposedontheUnitedStates.”Id.

Unlike in Winslow, every element of the allegations contained in Relator’sComplaint,

includingRelator’sspecific allegation of fraud, was in the public domain prior to the filing of

Relator’sComplaint.As Relator readily admits that her allegations consist of nothing more than

a compilation of information gleaned from the public domain, it is illogical for her to argue now

that there was insufficient information in the public domain prior to the filing of her Complaint

to expose the fraud she alleges. Relator’sallegationsepitomizethetypeofparasiticactionthat

the public disclosure bar is intended to prohibit; as the Department of Justice recently stated: “a

relator who has no firsthand information about fraud and brings nothing new to the suit should

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 8 of 17
5

{D0489151.1}

notbeentitledtoreaptherewardsofaFalseClaimsActsuit.”3Thus, because Relator has no

firsthandknowledgeandhascontributednothingtotheGovernment’sunderstanding of the NIST

Investigation, Relator’sComplaintmust be dismissed.

B. Relator Does Not Allege Any Direct or Independent Knowledge and,

Therefore, is Not an Original Source

Relator’sapparent assertion that the submission of her RFC entitles her to original source

status, Opp’n19, ignoresthestatutorylanguageoftheFCA,whichrequiresarelatorhave“direct

andindependentknowledgeoftheinformationonwhichtheallegationsarebased”toqualifyas

an original source. § 3730(e)(4)(B). Moreover, speculative allegations, such as those asserted in

Relator’sComplaint,arenotsufficienttosatisfythedirectandindependentknowledge

requirement. Aflatooni, 163 F.3d at 526. Accordingly, because Relator was in no way involved

in the fraud she alleges and her allegations are based entirely on second-hand information, her

Complaint must be dismissed.

Relator readily admits that the allegations contained in her RFC are based entirely on

second-hand information she collected from the public domain. See United States ex rel., Smith

v. Yale University, 415 F.Supp.2d 58, 72 (D.Conn. 2006) (“Directknowledgeisthatwhich

comesfromtherelatorhimselfandthusonecannotqualifyasan‘originalsource’ifathirdparty

is the source of the core information uponwhichaquitamcomplaintisbased”)(citationsand

quotationsomitted).Moreover,Relator’seffortstocompilethispublicly-available information

do not transform her into an original source. United States ex rel. Alcohol Found., Inc. v.

Kalmanovitz Charitable Found., Inc., 186 F.Supp.2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Thus, because

3

See Byassee Aff., ¶ 5, Ex. B, False Claims Correction Act of 2007, S. 2041 Before the S.

Comm. on the Judiciary, (2008) (statement of Brian A. Benczkowski, Principal Deputy Assistant

Attorney General).

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 9 of 17
6

{D0489151.1}

Relator is entirely lacking any direct or independent knowledge supporting these allegations, she

does not qualify as an original source.

Relator further fails to satisfy the original source requirement because the allegations

contained in her Complaint are purely speculative. “[B]ecausethepurposeoftheFCAisto

encourageindividualswithtrue‘knowledge’ofallegedwrongdoingtocomeforwardand

provide such information to the Government, the purposes of the Act would not be served by

allowingarelatortomaintainaquitam suitbasedonpurespeculationorconjecture.”

Aflatooni, 163 F.3d at 526. Relator responds to this legal argument with the factual assertion that

ARA has not, and cannot,assertthatRelator’sClaimsarespeculative,because“ARAshould

know full well that DEW destroyed the WTC.”4 Opp’n22-23. This assertion is both incorrect

and irrelevant. First, ARA categorically denies that any of the allegationscontainedinRelator’s

Complaint have any merit. More importantly, Relator lacks any direct or independent

knowledge supporting her allegation that DEW were used on September 11. Accordingly,

Relator’sallegationsarebasedentirelyonspeculation and, therefore, cannot satisfy the original

source requirement.

Finally,Relator’sOppositionmisconstruestheSupremeCourt’srecentdecisionin

RockwellInt’lCorp.v.UnitedStates, 127 S.Ct. 1397 (2007). Relator asserts that Rockwell

stands for thepropositionthatevenifRelator’sallegationsareincorrect“apredictionoffraudis

sufficientatthisearlystageofthecasewhereplaintiff’scontentionsare deemed true.”Opp’n

23. Relator’sinterpretationis incorrect. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Rockwell expressed doubt

4 Relator’sOppositionmakesmuchoftheallegationthat“[n]odefendanthasdeniedthat

DEW destroyedtheWTC atall,”andconcludesthat“[s]ilenceisanadmissionunder

circumstances like that.” Opp’n33. Defendants reiterate that the allegations contained in

Relator’sComplaint,includingthat“DEW destroyedtheWTC,”arewhollywithoutmerit.

However,themeritsofRelator’sallegationsareirrelevantforthepurposesofresolving

Defendants’MotiontoDismiss.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 10 of 17
7

{D0489151.1}

whethera“prediction”caneverqualifyasdirectandindependentknowledgeuponwhich

original source status can be based, expressly declining to address that question. Rockwell, 127

S.Ct. at 1410. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the relator in Rockwell did not qualify

as an original source because he was not employed by the defendant at the time of the alleged

wrongdoing, and therefore did not have direct and independent knowledge of the allegations in

his complaint. Id. Thus, contrary toRelator’sassertions,theRockwell decision affirms that

Relator is not an original source of the allegations contained in her Complaint because she did

not directly observe any of the activities she alleges were fraudulent.

III. Relator's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

Relator’sComplaintfailstostateaclaim uponwhichreliefcanbegrantedbecause

Relator fails to allege that Defendants submitted a false claim for payment to the Government,

Relatorfailstoallegealltheessentialelementsofareversefalseclaim actionandRelator’s

allegations are implausible. See Defs.’MotiontoDismiss,pp.16-25. Again, the responses

containedinRelator’sOppositionconsistalmostentirelyoffactual assertions regarding the

validityofRelator’sClaims, and Relator fails to address the legal arguments contained in

Defendants Motion to Dismiss. See Opp’n24-39.

Relator’sComplaintfailstostateaclaimundertheFCAbecauseRelator’sassertionthat

the Government orchestrated the fraud alleged in her Complaint is fundamentally inconsistent

with her allegation that Defendants defrauded the Government. See Defs.’MotiontoDismiss

19-23; United States ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 98 F.Supp.2d 517, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (FCA

actionsmaybevexatious“wherethegovernment’sundisputedprior knowledge of information

alleged to constitute fraud defeated any inference of a false claim”);United States v. Fiske, 968

F.Supp. 1347 (E.D.Ark. 1997) (allegation of joint wrongdoing by defendant and the Department

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 11 of 17
8

{D0489151.1}

of Justice failed to state a claim under the FCA).Relator’sOppositionfailsentirelytoaddress

this argument, and merely restatesRelator’sgeneralallegationthatDefendants defrauded the

Government. See Opp’n26-27. However,inrespondingtoDefendants’MotiontoDismiss,

Relator reaffirmed that her allegations are aimed more at the Government than at any fraud

allegedly committed by Defendants. Indeed,Relator’sOpposition specifically alleges

wrongdoing by NIST over 30 times. See Opp’npassim. Thus,Relator’sOppositionconfirms

that Relator’sComplaint fails to allege that Defendants defrauded the Government and,

therefore, fails to state a valid claim under the FCA.

Furthermore,Relator’sThirdCause of Action fails to state a valid claim for relief under §

3729(a)(7) of the FCA because Relator fails to allege all of the essential elements of a § (a)(7)

claim. Specifically, Relator fails to allege that Defendants had an independent legal duty to

transmit money or property to the Government and that Defendants made a false statement to

avoid or decrease that obligation. See United States ex rel. Capella v. Norden Systems, Inc., No.

3:94-CV-2063(EBB), 2000 WL 1336487, at *10 (D.Conn. Aug. 24, 2004) (relator mustallege“a

presentlyexistingobligationtopaythegovernment”)(citationsomitted).BecauseRelator’s

Oppositionfailstoidentifyanysuchobligation,Relator’sThirdCauseofActionmustbe

dismissed.

Finally,Relator’sComplaintfailsto satisfy the plausibility test established by the

Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and adopted by the

Second Circuit in Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2007) (complaints mustmeet“aflexible

‘plausibilitystandard,’whichobligesapleadertoamplifyaclaimwithsomefactualallegations

in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible”).Relator’s

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 12 of 17
9

{D0489151.1}

allegations speak for themselves in this regard. Therefore, Relator’sComplaint must be

dismissed.

IV. Relator's Complaint Also Must Be Dismissed For Failure to Plead Fraud With

Particularity

Relator’soppositiontoDefendants’assertionthatshe failed to plead fraud with the

particularity required by Rule 9(b) is unpersuasive. Relator asserts that Defendants have

“ignoredtheinformationandtheparticularsalreadyprovided,”andthatDefendants’“requestfor

particulars is disingenuous.” Opp’n39, 40. However, Relator’sComplaintconsistssolelyof

conclusory allegations and, therefore, fails to satisfy Rule 9(b).

Defendants reiterate that Relator’sComplaintfails to satisfy Rule 9(b) because it does not

identify a single false claim for payment that Defendants actually submitted to the Government.

RelatorassertsthatDefendants’“certificationstoNISTarefalseandfraudulent,”Opp’n26,but

fails to identify even one single such certification. This alone is sufficient for dismissal. United

States ex rel. Walsh v. Eastman Kodak Co.,98F.Supp.2d141,147(D.Mass.2000)(“Without

citing a single false claim arising from an allegedly false invoice, Relator has not met even a

bare-bonesRule9(b)test”); United States ex rel. Smith v. New York Presbyterian Hosp., No. 06

Civ. 4056(NRB), 2007 WL 2142312, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2007) (complaint failed to plead

fraud with particularity because relator failed to “list a single NYPH employee or hospital

technician who is alleged to have been involved in submitting any of the thousands of

purportedly fraudulent claims that went to the government and he gives no specific amounts,

dates or other details for any fraudulent claims either made or paid”). Thus, because the

hundreds of pages of pleadings, affidavits and exhibits submitted by Relator fail to identify even

one single false claim that Defendants allegedly submitted to the Government, Relator’s

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 13 of 17
10

{D0489151.1}

Complaint fails to plead fraud with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) and must be

dismissed.

V. Defendants Do Not Believe That Oral Argument is Necessary and Would Oppose

The Introduction of Any Testimony Should the Court Deem Oral Arguments

Necessary

Relator’sOppositionrequestsoralargumentandstatesthat“testimonymayberequired.”

Opp'n i. Defendants strongly believe that the papers in this matter speak for themselves and that

Defendants’Motionto Dismiss can be decided without oral argument. Rule 12 does not grant

Relatorarighttoahearing,and“‘motionsmaybedecidedwhollyonthepapers,andusually

are.’”Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313, 315 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing World Brilliance

Corp. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 342 F.2d 362, 366 (2d Cir. 1965)). Moreover, dismissal of a

complaint without an oral hearing on the motion does not violate due process. Id. at 316.

Should the Court determine that oral argument would assist the Court in resolving this

matter,DefendantswillopposeRelator’sintroductionofanytestimony.Defendants’Motionto

Dismissrestssolelyon articles,courtdocuments,and otherdocumentation. Relator’s

Opposition similarly relies solely on documentary evidence, and any testimony in this matter

wouldonlyfurtherobfuscatetheissueswithRelator’sunsupported allegations. The legal issues

presentedinDefendants’MotiontoDismissaresimpleandstraightforwardand,intheinterests

of judicial economy, Defendants request that the Court decide this Motion on the papers and

without testimony.

WHEREFORE,becausethisCourtlackssubjectmatterjurisdictionoverRelator’sclaims

pursuant to the statutory public disclosure bar, Relator’sComplaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted andRelator’sComplaintfailstopleadfraudwithsufficient

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 14 of 17
11

{D0489151.1}

particularity,DefendantsrespectfullyrequestthattheCourtdismissRelator’sComplaintinit

entirety.

Dated: March 7, 2008

Denver, Colorado

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Wm. David Byassee

Adam S. Ennis

SDNY Bar No. AE9468

Jackson Kelly PLLC

Three Gateway Center, Suite 1340

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Telephone: 412-434-8804

Facsimile: 412-434-8062

Email: aennis@jacksonkelly.com

Wm. David Byassee, Esq.

(admitted pro hac vice)

Gail D. Zirkelbach, Esq.

(admitted pro hac vice)

Jackson Kelly PLLC

1099 18th Street, Suite 2150

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: 303-390-0003

Facsimile: 303-390-0177

Email: dbyassee@jacksonkelly.com

gdzirkelbach@jacksonkelly.com

Counsel for Applied Research Associates, Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 15 of 17
12

{D0489151.1}

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 7th day of March 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.'S REPLY TO RELATOR'S

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MTOINS TO

DISMISS with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

filing to the following e-mail addresses:

Jerry V. Leaphart

jsleaphart@cs.com

Counsel for Relator

Chad E. Sjoquist

Louis J. Dennis

csjoquist@zdlaw.com

ldennis@zdlaw.com

Counsel for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP

Philip C. Semprevivo

psemprevivo@bhmr.com

Counsel for Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

Philip Touitou

Kevin R. Sido

Renee C. Choy

ptouitou@hinshawlaw.com

ksido@hinshawlaw.com

rchoy@hinshawlaw.com

Counsel for Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. and

Rolf Jensen Associates, Inc.

Charles E. Dorkey, III

cdorkey@mckennalong.com

Counsel for Science Applications International Corp.

Jason A. Harrington

jason.harrington@wilsonelser.com

Counsel for Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek, LLP

Jeffrey S. Margolin

margolin@hugheshubbard.com

Counsel for Teng & Associates, Inc.

John T. Morin

jtm@wkgj.com

Counsel for Hughes Associates, Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 16 of 17
13

{D0489151.1}

David M. Pollack

dpollack@donovanhatem.com

Counsel for Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. and

Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.

And I hereby certify that I have mailed or served the document or paper to the following

non-CM/ECF participants by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed to the

following:

Edward B. Keidan

Conway & Mrowiec

20 South Clark Street

Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60603

s/ Wm. David Byassee

Adam S. Ennis

SDNY Bar No. AE9468

Jackson Kelly PLLC

Three Gateway Center, Suite 1340

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Telephone: 412-434-8804

Facsimile: 412-434-8062

Email: aennis@jacksonkelly.com

Wm. David Byassee, Esq.

(admitted pro hac vice)

Gail D. Zirkelbach, Esq.

(admitted pro hac vice)

Jackson Kelly PLLC

1099 18th Street, Suite 2150

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: 303-390-0003

Facsimile: 303-390-0177

Email: dbyassee@jacksonkelly.com

gdzirkelbach@jacksonkelly.com

Counsel for Applied Research Associates, Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 74 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 17 of 17