Opinion ID: 3037016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relators challenge the assertions in the grant

Text: application that the researchers have “achieved the technical and surgical skills necessary for realizing the desired outcome,” that they can identify gross anatomical landmarks, and that the cells were embedded in the desired loca- tions. 3. Relators challenge the projections in the grant application as to the number of tumors the researchers would create. 4. Relators challenge the statement in the grant application that “neonatal pups cannot be induced to accept allogenic cells,” thus necessitating the approach taken by Berens. 5. Relators challenge the assertions in the grant application as to Pilkington’s involvement as a consultant and provider of control dogs (i.e. dogs with naturally occurring brain tumors). With respect to each allegation, the false or misleading statement was contained in the grant application obtained via Haight’s FOIA request. Before Relators filed their complaint, several news articles were published on the Berens’ controversial animal experiments. See, e.g., Scott Bewick, Researcher’s Beagle Testing Unnecessary, Protesters Say, ASU STATE PRESS, Sept. 28, 2000, available in part at http://studentmedia.vpsa.asu.edu/ webarchives/; James Hibberd, Screwing the Pooch, PHOENIX NEW TIMES, Jan. 4, 2001, at 14-24, available at http:// phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2001-01-04/news/feature.html. In addition, In Defense of Animals issued several press and news releases relating to the Berens study. Relators argue that what they allege to be the truth about Berens’ study was discovered through Haight’s independent investigation. 4390 UNITED STATES v. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST Haight and In Defense of Animals filed their complaint on behalf of the United States under the qui tam provisions of the FCA in the Northern District of California. The United States declined to intervene in the action. Based on Defendants’ motion, the suit was transferred to Arizona. After transfer, the Relators filed an amended complaint, and the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. After the motion to dismiss was denied, the Defendants filed an Answer, and the parties initiated discovery. Then the Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss, now based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4). After argument the district court granted the Defendants’ motion, holding that a response to a FOIA request is a public disclosure via an enumerated source and that accordingly Relators’ suit was barred under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4). The district court also awarded costs to the Defendants. The Relators appeal both the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and the order awarding costs. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. United States ex rel. Hochman v. Nackman, 145 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 1998).