Opinion ID: 158481
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Express False Certification Claims

Text: Plaintiffs' third amended complaint sufficiently alleges that Envirocare knowingly submitted legally false requests for payment to the government and that the government paid the requests. Thus, in order to sustain their express-false-certification claims, Plaintiffs need only to have allegedwith sufficient factual basis-that the requests contained a false statement and that the statement was material to the government's decision to pay. Plaintiffs' third amended complaint addresses the false-statement requirement by pointing to the payment requests' certification that the payments requested were only for work performed in accordance with the specifications, terms and conditions of the contract.... Aplt.App. at 462. Because Envirocare's work was not performed in accordance with the contractual requirements, Plaintiffs allege, the certifications were false. Envirocare contends that the FCA does not apply because the language of the certification fails to certify compliance with any specific contractual term. See Aplee. Br. 30-31, 33. Envirocare relies on language in Conner regarding certification of compliance with a  particular ... contractual term. Conner, 543 F.3d at 1217 (quoting Mikes, 274 F.3d at 698) (emphasis added). So read, this language would preclude claims whenever a payee certifies compliance with all contractual requirements rather than with a single, specific contractual requirement. [5] Such a reading runs counter to the plain language of § 3792(a)(2), the FCA's broad application to all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money, United States v. Neifert-White Co., 390 U.S. 228, 233, 88 S.Ct. 959, 19 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1968), the legislative history of the FCA, see, e.g., S.Rep. No. 99-345 (noting that the FCA covers any claim for goods or services ... provided in violation of contract terms ....), and our recognition in Conner that an express-false-certification claim can arise from any false statement that relates to a claim, Conner, 543 F.3d at 1217. We decline to read this language in Conner as exclusive, i.e., the only way to raise an express-false-certification claim, and thus find that requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) have been satisfied.