Opinion ID: 39064
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability for certain acts. – Any person

Text: who – 8
presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; [or]
made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government; ... is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty.... 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), (a)(2). The FCA defines “claim” as “any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or property”. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(c). “It is only those claims for money or property to which a defendant is not entitled that are ‘false’ for purposes of the False Claims Act.” United States v. Southland Mgmt. Corp., 326 F.3d 669, 674-75 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (citation omitted). Stebner asserts: the district court interpreted too narrowly the meaning of “claim”; an FCA violation has occurred when, as here, goods do not conform to contractual specifications but invoices are submitted to the Government. Stebner contends the district court failed to analyze sufficiently the summary judgment evidence as to MBC and erred when it concluded: there was no implied certification in the DD250 or progress reports; MBC’s certifications to S&S were not false claims under the FCA; and there can be no false claim where the Government has received the benefit of its bargain. 9 S&S and MBC respond: Stebner fails to identify any false claims; the Government’s contractual resolution with S&S negates any alleged false claims; there was no knowing submission of false claims because the Government was informed of all corrosion problems; and Stebner cannot establish that the claims, if false, were material to the Government’s decision to pay. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, summary judgment in favor of S&S and MBC was appropriate. The claims S&S submitted to the Government were the progress payment requests and the Government-signed DD250. Neither expressly certified compliance with every provision of the overall contract. Our court has not adopted an implied theory of certification. See U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 381-82 (5th Cir. 2003). Even if we were to do so, FCA liability would not attach in this action. The Government was involved in the design, production, testing, and modification of the FMTVs; and S&S and the Government negotiated contract modifications in response to the well-documented corrosion problem. The Government retained, and exercised, its discretion to conditionally accept or refuse to accept FMTVs that did not meet contractual standards; and the DD250 was not signed by the Government until it was ready to accept a vehicle. See Southland, 326 F.3d at 675. As a result, S&S’s subcontractor, MBC, did not 10 “cause[] a prime contractor to submit a false claim to the Government”. United States v. Bornstein, 423 U.S. 303, 309 (1976).