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
1-13-2009 

# Ro dri gue z v

. Our L a dy Lourdes M ed
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-5207

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Rodr i guez v

. Our L a dy L our de s M e d " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1962. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1962P 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. 06- 5207
R E N E E R O D R I G U E Z ; B A R B A R A K I N G , I n t he N ame of t he U ni t ed St at es G over nm entPur s uantt o t he Fal s e C l ai m s A ct , 31 U
. S. C
. Sect i on 3730, and I ndi vi dual l yPur s uantt o t he N ew J er s eyC ons ci ent i ous E m pl oy ee Pr ot ect i on A ct A p p e llan ts
v. OUR LADY O F LOURDES M EDI CAL CE NTE R

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 00129) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R ober tB
. K ugl er
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber1, 2008
B efor e: A M B R O , W E I S, and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed D ece m ber30, 2008) OR DE R A M E ND I NG 

### PRECEDENTI AL OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJudge I T I S N O W O R D E R E D t hatt he publ i s hed O pi ni on i n t he above cas e fi l ed D ece m ber 30 , 20 08 , be am end ed as fo l l ow s:2

O n pages 11–12, s t ar t i ng att he four t h l i ne fr om t he bot t om , r epl ace A s s uch, w e w i l l uphol d t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m issal onl yi f, acc e p t i n g “ a l l wel l p l e a d e d f a c tu a l a l l e g a t i o n s a s t ru e and d ra w [ in g ] a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s f ro m su c h a lleg a tio n s in favor o f t he compl ai nant , ” i ti s cl eart hatR odr i guez a nd K i ng cannotprov e a s etof fa ct s t hatw oul d ent i t l e t hem t o r el i ef. W or ldcom , I

nc. v. G r aphnet

, I nc. , 3 4 3 F
. 3 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 3 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ).
w ith A s s uch, w e “a cce ptal l fac tual al l egat i ons as t rue, cons t rue t he

compl ai nti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff, and det er m i ne w het her , underanyr eas onabl e r ead ing of t he compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” I d. at233 ( quot i ng P i nker v. R oche H oldi ngs Lt d. , 2 9 2 F .3 d 3 6 1 , 3 7 4 n .7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 )). B yth e C o u rt,
/ s /T hom as L
. A m br o, C i r cui tJ udge D at ed: J anuary13, 2009 t m m / cc: R os s B egel m an, E s q. B r i an P. Fl aher t y , E s q. G r egor yA
. L om ax, E s q. St uar tA
. M i nkow i t z, E s q. M ar c M
. O r l ow , E s q. D re w A . W ix te d , E s q .