Opinion ID: 2305757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The False Claims Act

Text: Mr. Grayson contends that the trial court improperly dismissed his FCA claim because it is not based on `allegations or transactions [of fraud] disclosed by the news media. . . .' [22] He maintains that [t]here simply is no way that one could read [the statements cited in his complaint from the NAUPA newsletter and CCH State Tax Review] . . . and conclude that [the appellees] are systematically excluding dormant calling card balances from their annual District unclaimed property reports. He asserts that [t]he newsletters do not mention [the appellees], they do not mention the District (or any State), and they do not mention unclaimed property reports. Thus, his entire complaint is [not] `based on' those public disclosures. Further, the CCH State Tax Review and the NAUPA newsletter are not news media. Alternatively, Mr. Grayson argues that if this court determines that his suit is barred by the public disclosure bar, this court should hold that he was an original source of the disclosed information. He contends that his complaint details his seventeen years of experience as a communications industry insider, and recounts [his] conversations [with] another industry insider, MCI's Unclaimed Property Reporting Manager; and that these facts demonstrate that he has `direct and independent' knowledge of the allegations in his complaint. Appellees support the trial court's ruling and reasoning. They contend that the information underlying Mr. Grayson's claims had been publicly disclosed long before he filed his lawsuit. Moreover, they maintain, the publicly disclosed information in [Mr.] Grayson's own complaint. . . gave the government what it needed to investigate and to decide whether to file a complaint against them; and that other [specified] news media publications confirm the breadth of the prior public disclosures. Appellees take issue with Mr. Grayson's assertion that publications like the NAUPA newsletter are not news media; they argue that [t]he test for public disclosure is not whether all members of the general public are aware of the alleged actions, but whether the information has been placed into the public domain so that a `stranger to the fraud' could access them and act on them as did relator. With respect to the original source requirement, appellees declare that Mr. Grayson cannot rely on his self-proclaimed status as a `communications insider' to prove direct and independent knowledge. They also maintain that Mr. Grayson improperly relies on an alleged conversation with an MCI unclaimed property reporting manager during some unidentified timeframe, and that [t]he knowledge acquired from any such conversation is merely `derivative of the information of others, even if those others may qualify as original sources,' and does not satisfy the `direct and independent' prerequisite. As the discussion below indicates, we believe that appellees' arguments are more persuasive, and are supported by ample case law. The NAUPA and CCH Tax Review article highlighted in Mr. Grayson's complaint, and other publications identified by appellees, constitute news media, and Mr. Grayson's FCA claim is based on allegations disclosed by those publications. In fact, the allegations in his complaint are substantially similar or substantially identical to information disclosed in those publications. Furthermore, we are unable to say on this record that Mr. Grayson is the original source of the allegations in his complaint. Therefore, Mr. Grayson has not overcome the jurisdictional bar set forth in the FCA, and we must conclude that the trial court's dismissal of the FCA claim was appropriate.