Opinion ID: 161558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District Court's Second Dismissal Order

Text: On February 29, 2000, the district court vacated its prior order of dismissal on res judicata grounds and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held: The defendants contested only the timeliness of King's disclosure of information to the government in connection with King I. The defendants did not contest the timeliness of the disclosure vis-a-vis the qui tam action, and the Court found King had sufficiently alleged for purposes of the pending Motions to Dismiss that he was an original source of the information, and that the Court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. The United States has now advised the Court and opposing counsel in its amicus curiae brief that it has no record of King providing any information about the allegations giving rise to this lawsuit prior to February 27, 1998, the date the original complaint was filed. In light of the government's clarification about King's actions, the Court concludes that reconsideration of its Order is necessary to the extent the Court now finds King did not provide the information on which the allegations in the qui tam action are based prior to filing the FCA action. King therefore does not qualify as an original source, and, consequently, this action is barred. E.g., Spectrum, 190 F.3d at 1157 (FCA specifically bars all qui tam actions based on publicly disclosed information unless person bringing action was original source of information). (II Aplt. App. at 387-88). Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the district court based its jurisdictional ruling on the suggested facts stated in the government's amicus curiae brief rather than the allegation appearing in Dr. King's proposed second amended complaint or the statement in Dr. King's memorandum of law filed on November 4, 1999, that he had provided detailed information organized in notebooks to the U.S. Attorney in Oklahoma City and to the Department of Justice prior to filing this action. (II Aplt. App. at 387).