Court Opinion

ID: 9556584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 19:01:12.737164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:23.726419
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13673    Document: 72-1    Date Filed: 08/17/2023   Page: 1 of 18

                                                          [PUBLISH]
                                  In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                No. 21-13673
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
        ex rel.,
                                                               Plaintiﬀ,
        84PARTNERS, LLC,
        Relator,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        NUFLO, INC., et al.,

                                                           Defendants,

        GENERAL DYNAMICS ELECTRIC BOAT,
        HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES,
USCA11 Case: 21-13673       Document: 72-1        Date Filed: 08/17/2023      Page: 2 of 18

        2                        Opinion of the Court                    21-13673

        NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING DIVISION,

                                                         Defendants-Appellees.
                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-01256-TJC-PDB
                            ____________________

        Before BRANCH and GRANT, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,* District
        Judge
        HINKLE, District Judge:
               This is a False Claims Act or “qui tam” action arising from
        the delivery of defective pipe fittings for installation in nuclear at-
        tack submarines. The district court dismissed the second amended
        complaint with prejudice for failure to plead with particularity the
        actual submission or payment of false claims. After careful review
        and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.
                                           I. Facts
              For more than 20 years, the United States Navy contracted
        with the defendant-appellee General Dynamics Electric Boat

        * Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern
        District of Florida, sitting by designation
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 3 of 18

        21-13673               Opinion of the Court                        3

        Corporation (“EB”) for the construction, testing, and delivery of
        Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines. EB in turn entered into a
        subcontract with the defendant-appellee Huntington Ingalls Indus-
        tries, Newport News Shipbuilding Division (“NNS”). EB and NNS
        had a “teaming arrangement” under which they built submarines
        for final delivery to the Navy.
               EB and NNS procured parts known as pipe fittings from
        Nuflo, Inc. (“Nuflo”), either directly or through a distributor, Syn-
        ergy Flow Systems, LLC (“Synergy”). According to the second
        amended complaint—often referred to in this opinion simply as the
        complaint—roughly 4,000 of the 225,000 parts supplied by Nuflo
        were defective. Some had improper materials or welds. Others had
        not been properly inspected, tested, or traced through the process.
        These and all the other factual allegations in the complaint must be
        accepted as true for purposes of this appeal, construed in the light
        most favorable to the plaintiff. White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253,
        1255 (11th Cir. 1999).
               EB or NNS discovered some of the defective parts and ap-
        parently rejected them; the complaint does not allege EB or NNS
        accepted parts they knew were defective. But EB and NNS failed
        to discover other defects. At least 42 defective parts made it into
        submarines delivered to the Navy. The complaint alleges this oc-
        curred because EB and NNS recklessly disregarded their oversight
        responsibilities, failing to heed multiple warning signs that Nuflo
        was delivering defective parts.
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 4 of 18

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13673

               The complaint does not identify any claim for payment sub-
        mitted to the Navy that included any of the 42 parts or, for that
        matter, any other defective parts. But the complaint alleges the
        Navy made interim and final payments covering all allowable
        costs. Allowable costs included costs incurred for parts installed on
        submarines delivered to the Navy.
                              II. Proceedings Below
                The False Claims Act allows a private party—a “relator”—
        to file an action on behalf of the United States. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b).
        In this action the relator is the appellant 84Partners, LLC, a limited
        partnership whose members include Mickey Skobic and Joanne
        Skobic. The only other member, Peter Schilke, has died. The rec-
        ord does not show how his death affected his membership, and for
        present purposes it makes no difference.
               Mr. Skobic was a Nuflo employee who, for nearly a decade,
        personally participated in improper welding of parts slated for de-
        livery to EB or NNS for installation in Navy submarines. Rather
        than complain at that time, Mr. Skobic kept a journal of his im-
        proper welds. Ms. Skobic was a Nuflo employee whose duties in-
        cluded quality checks during part of the period at issue.
              Mr. Schilke was an engineer employed at EB who said he
        was present for meetings and conversations and received docu-
        ments showing that EB and NNS “accepted” “non-conforming”
        Nuflo parts that were either awaiting installation or had already
        been installed in submarines. Mr. Schilke did not say the meetings
        or conversations or reports showed EB and NNS knew the parts
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 5 of 18

        21-13673               Opinion of the Court                        5

        were nonconforming when they were accepted. Nor did he say in
        what way the parts were nonconforming. Mr. Schilke listed 17
        parts that had either been installed or were in EB’s stock—circum-
        stances that he said meant the parts had been accepted and were an
        already-incurred cost for purposes of the applicable payment sys-
        tem. Mr. Schilke provided this information to the Skobics and to
        the government during its investigation of this case, but there is no
        allegation he kept contemporaneous records as the events oc-
        curred.
                The original complaint named four defendants: EB, NNS,
        Nuflo, and Nuflo’s distributor, Synergy. Under the False Claims
        Act, the United States had the right to intervene, but it chose not
        to. The United States later did intervene, though, for the limited
        purpose of effecting a settlement between the United States and
        84Partners, on one side, and Nuflo, on the other side. Based on the
        settlement, the district court dismissed the claims against Nuflo.
        84Partners, still acting as relator, filed an amended complaint, this
        time naming only two defendants: EB and NNS. The government
        still did not intervene on the merits. Nuflo and Synergy were no
        longer in the case.
              EB and NNS filed separate motions to dismiss the amended
        complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be
        granted. Following a telephonic hearing, the district court granted
        the motions and gave 84Partners leave to file a second amended
        complaint. The court said that after the extensive briefing that al-
        ready had occurred, 84Partners knew the critical issues, so any
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 6 of 18

        6                      Opinion of the Court                21-13673

        failure to state a claim in a second amended complaint was likely
        to result in dismissal with prejudice—that is, without leave to
        amend further.
               84Partners filed a second amended complaint. It had 525
        numbered paragraphs spanning 142 pages. It included four counts:
        separate false-claim counts against EB and NNS (counts 1 and 3)
        and separate false-statement counts against them (counts 2 and 4),
        as further explained below. EB and NNS again filed separate mo-
        tions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 84Partners responded
        that the motions should be denied. 84Partners did not assert that,
        if the motions were granted, 84Partners should be given leave to
        amend further. 84Partners did not suggest it could allege more than
        it had already alleged in the second amended complaint.
                The district court granted the motions and dismissed the
        second amended complaint. With no request pending for leave to
        amend further, the court provided only a brief explanation for mak-
        ing the dismissal with prejudice: “[A]fter almost eight years and
        some limited discovery [84Partners] still cannot state a cause of
        action.” In a footnote, the court said that in the hearing on the mo-
        tion to dismiss the first amended complaint, the court said a second
        amended complaint “would be dismissed with prejudice if it did
        not state a cause of action.” The dismissal ended the case in the
        district court. This is 84Partners’ appeal.
                             III. Pleading Standards
             To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on
        which relief can be granted, a complaint must include “factual
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023      Page: 7 of 18

        21-13673               Opinion of the Court                          7

        content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
        the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
        556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). For purposes of such a motion, the com-
        plaint’s factual allegations, though not its legal conclusions, must
        be accepted as true. Id.; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
        544, 555 (2007).
               Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint
        to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
        the pleader is entitled to relief.” When, as here, a complaint alleges
        fraud or mistake, Rule 9(b) goes further, requiring the complaint to
        “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or
        mistake.” Even under Rule 9(b), “malice, intent, knowledge, and
        other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”
                             IV. Standards of Review
                We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint
        for failure to state a claim. Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan Univ., 780 F.3d
        1039, 1050 (11th Cir. 2015). This includes a dismissal for failure to
        allege fraud with the required particularity. We review for abuse
        of discretion a district court’s denial of leave to amend. See Bryant
        v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001).
                                V. False Claims Act
               As relevant here, the False Claims Act creates a cause of ac-
        tion in favor of the United States against any person who “(A)
        knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent
        claim for payment or approval” or “(B) knowingly makes, uses, or
USCA11 Case: 21-13673       Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 8 of 18

        8                       Opinion of the Court                   21-13673

        causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to
        a false or fraudulent claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) & (B).
               A prior version of the “false record or statement” provi-
        sion—at that time numbered 3729(a)(2)—applies to claims that
        were not pending on or after June 7, 2008. See Hopper v. Solvay
        Pharm., Inc., 588 F.3d 1318, 1329 nn.3–4 (11th Cir. 2009). The com-
        plaint does not make clear whether its false-statement counts arise
        from any such claims. The provision created a cause of action
        against a person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be
        made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudu-
        lent claim paid or approved by the Government.” See id. at 1327 &
        n.3.
               A “claim,” as that term is used in these provisions, includes
        a request or demand for payment presented to an officer, em-
        ployee, or agent of the United States. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(i).
        A “claim” also includes a request or demand for payment presented
        to a government contractor if the United States has funded or will
        reimburse the payment. Id. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii). There are condi-
        tions on and exceptions to these definitions, but they make no dif-
        ference here.
                A person presents a false claim or makes or uses a false rec-
        ord or statement “knowingly” if the person has “actual knowledge”
        that the information at issue is false, “acts in deliberate ignorance
        of” its truth or falsity, or “acts in reckless disregard of” its truth or
        falsity. Id. § 3729(b)(1); see also Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan Univ., 780
        F.3d 1039, 1058 (11th Cir. 2015). An innocent or even negligent
USCA11 Case: 21-13673       Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 9 of 18

        21-13673                Opinion of the Court                           9

        false claim or misstatement is not enough. Urquilla-Diaz, 780 F.3d
        at 1058.
                                      VI. Merits
               To state a § 3729(a)(1)(A) presentment claim, a complaint
        must allege (1) a false claim, (2) that the defendant presented, or
        caused to be presented, for payment or approval, (3) with
        knowledge that the claim was false. United States ex rel. Phalp v. Lin-
        care Holdings, Inc., 857 F.3d 1148, 1154 (11th Cir. 2017). To state a
        § 3729(a)(1)(B) false-statement claim, a complaint must allege (1)
        the defendant made, or caused to be made, a false statement, (2)
        the defendant knew the statement was false, and (3) the statement
        was material to a false claim. Id.
               To state a false-statement claim under the prior version of
        the statute, the old § 3729(a)(2), a complaint must allege (1) the de-
        fendant made, or caused to be made, a false statement, (2) for the
        purpose of getting a false claim paid or approved by the govern-
        ment, (3) the defendant knew the statement was false, and (4) the
        government paid the claim. See Hopper, 588 F.3d at 1327–29.
               Knowledge, for this purpose, includes deliberate ignorance
        or reckless disregard, as set out in the statute and noted above.
                As this makes clear, an essential element that must be al-
        leged in a False Claims Act complaint is the actual presentment or
        payment of a false claim. See, e.g., Carrel v. AIDS Healthcare Found.,
        Inc., 898 F.3d 1267, 1275 (11th Cir. 2018); United States ex rel. Clausen
        v. Lab. Corp. of Am., Inc., 290 F.3d 1301, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002). In-
        deed, Clausen labeled submission of a claim “the sine qua non of a
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 08/17/2023       Page: 10 of 18

        10                       Opinion of the Court                   21-13673

        False Claims Act violation.” Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1311. A false claim
        is essential not only under § 3729(a)(1)(A), which deals directly with
        false claims, but also under § 3729(a)(1)(B) and its predecessor, the
        old § 3729(a)(2), which deal with false records or statements. See,
        e.g., Phalp, 857 F.3d at 1154; Urquilla-Diaz, 780 F.3d at 1052. Stand-
        ing alone, a fraudulent scheme, no matter how egregious, is not
        enough; there must be an actual false claim.
                Rule 9(b) applies to False Claims Act allegations and, as we
        have emphasized time and again, requires the false claim and, at
        least for § 3729(a)(1)(A), its presentment to be alleged with particu-
        larity. See, e.g., Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1308–09, 1313. Rule 9(b) serves
        two purposes: “alerting defendants to the precise misconduct with
        which they are charged and protecting defendants against spurious
        charges of immoral and fraudulent behavior.” Clausen, 290 F.3d at
        1310 (quoting Ziemba v. Cascade Int’l, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th
        Cir. 2001)); see also United States ex rel. Matheny v. Medco Health Sols.,
        Inc., 671 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2012). This second purpose is
        “especially important” in False Claims Act cases filed by relators; in
        such cases the rule “ensures that the relator’s strong financial in-
        centive to bring an FCA claim . . . does not precipitate the filing of
        frivolous suits.” United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350,
        1360 (11th Cir. 2006).
              In affirming dismissal of a False Claims action for failure to
        plead presentment of a false claim with the required particularity,
        Clausen said this:
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023       Page: 11 of 18

        21-13673                Opinion of the Court                         11

               When a plaintiff does not specifically plead the mini-
               mum elements of their allegation, it enables them to
               learn the complaint’s bare essentials through discov-
               ery and may needlessly harm a defendant[’s] goodwill
               and reputation by bringing a suit that is, at best, miss-
               ing some of its core underpinnings, and, at worst,
               [consists of] baseless allegations used to extract settle-
               ments. This is especially so in cases involving the
               False Claims Act, which provides a windfall for the
               first person to file and permits recovery on behalf of
               the real victim, the Government.
        Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1313 n.24 (citation omitted).
                The complaint in Clausen alleged the defendant engaged in a
        specifically described, multifaceted, decade-long practice of per-
        forming unnecessary medical tests on residents of long-term care
        facilities. Id. at 1303. The complaint alleged bills for the tests were
        submitted to the government within a few days after the tests were
        performed. Id. But the complaint did not attach any bills or give
        their dates or amounts. Id. at 1305. The district court dismissed the
        complaint for failure to plead with particularity the actual present-
        ment of false claims. Id. We affirmed and said Rule 9(b)
               does not permit a False Claims Act plaintiff merely to
               describe a private scheme in detail but then to allege
               simply and without any stated reason for his belief
               that claims requesting illegal payments must have
               been submitted, were likely submitted or should have
               been submitted to the Government. . . . [I]f Rule 9(b)
               is to be adhered to, some indicia of reliability must be
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023      Page: 12 of 18

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  21-13673

               given in the complaint to support the allegation of an
               actual false claim for payment being made to the Gov-
               ernment.
        Id. at 1311 (emphasis in original).
               We did not say attaching a copy of a bill is always required.
        In Clausen, no “copy of a single bill or payment was provided”—
        and furthermore, no “amounts of charges were identified”; no “ac-
        tual dates were alleged”; and no “policies about billing or even sec-
        ond-hand information about billing practices” were specified. Id. at
        1312. While the opinion specifies that it does not “mandate all of
        this information for any of the alleged claims,” plaintiffs could
        show none of it—and “some of this information for at least some
        of the claims must be pleaded in order to satisfy Rule 9(b).” Id. at
        1312 n.21.
                 We followed Clausen in Corsello v. Lincare, 428 F.3d 1008
        (11th Cir. 2005). There the complaint presented the same problem:
        a detailed description of a widespread fraudulent scheme unaccom-
        panied by particularized allegations of the actual presentment of
        false claims. Id. at 1011. The district court dismissed the complaint,
        and again we affirmed: “Underlying improper practices alone are
        insufficient to state a claim under the False Claims Act absent alle-
        gations that a specific fraudulent claim was in fact submitted to the
        government.” Id. at 1014 (citing Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1311). We
        faulted the relator for failing to allege “the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’
        ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of fraudulent submissions to the government.”
        Id.; cf. United States ex rel. Sanchez v. Lynphatx, Inc., 596 F.3d 1300,
        1302 (11th Cir. 2010).
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023      Page: 13 of 18

        21-13673                Opinion of the Court                         13

               We reached the same result in Carrel. There the relator al-
        leged with considerable particularity a kickback scheme actionable
        under the False Claims Act. Carrel, 898 F.3d at 1270 (citing 42 U.S.C.
        § 1320a-7b(g)). But with the exception of two transactions that did
        not involve illegal kickbacks, the relator failed to allege with partic-
        ularity the actual submission of a false claim. Id. at 1276–79. We
        said speculation that false claims “must have been submitted” and
        a general allegation that doing so was “standard operating proce-
        dure” were not enough. Id. at 1277, 1278.
               This case is similar. The complaint alleges with particularity
        egregious underlying misconduct: Nuflo’s provision of defective
        parts to EB or NNS for installation in nuclear attack submarines.
        The complaint alleges with some—but less—particularity that EB
        and NNS should have taken steps to prevent or correct the ongoing
        provision of defective parts. The complaint alleges that in failing to
        do so, EB and NNS acted recklessly. But like the complaints in
        Clausen, Costello, and Carrel, the complaint does not allege with par-
        ticularity the actual submission of false claims—claims covering the
        42 defective parts, or any other defective parts, that made it into
        submarines. Nor does the complaint allege with particularity that
        any false claim was paid. Despite having years to investigate and
        receiving full cooperation from the Navy, 84Partners has been un-
        able to identify a single claim actually presented to or paid by the
        government.
              84Partners asserts, though, that this case is different. 84Part-
        ners says the Navy was obligated to pay for parts installed in
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023      Page: 14 of 18

        14                      Opinion of the Court                  21-13673

        submarines, not individually but as part of EB’s overall interim and
        final billings, and that installation of a part in a submarine thus con-
        clusively shows that EB billed and the Navy paid for the part. Even
        if we accepted this reasoning, 84Partners’ allegations would still fall
        short. As the district court correctly noted, the complaint fails to
        allege with particularity what happened between Nuflo’s provision
        of defective parts to EB or NNS, on the one hand, and the eventual
        installation of a small subset of those parts in submarines, on the
        other hand. 84Partners still has not alleged how those parts—the
        42 that have been identified or any others—got past EB or NNS and
        into submarines.
                Indeed, the complaint does not even allege whether it was
        EB or NNS who, despite blocking some defective parts, failed to
        discover the defects in any specific parts that made it into subma-
        rines. More importantly, the complaint fails to state with particu-
        larity what caused the responsible party—whether EB or NNS or
        both—to fail to discover those specific parts’ defect. As Clausen, Cos-
        tello, and Carrel make clear, underlying improper practices, even if
        fraudulent and so widespread as to constitute standard operating
        procedure, are not enough; a complaint must allege with particu-
        larity a connection between those practices and one or more actual
        claims. 84Partners has failed to meet that requirement.
               The failure is understandable, because 84Partners had no re-
        liable basis for filling the gaps in the complaint. The Skobics
        worked at Nuflo. They had a reliable basis for at least some of their
        allegations about Nuflo’s misconduct. Indeed, Mr. Skobic
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023      Page: 15 of 18

        21-13673                Opinion of the Court                         15

        participated in some of it. But they did not have a reliable basis for
        any allegation about the critical events at EB or NNS—about how
        EB or NNS discovered some defects but not others. The complaint
        alleges Mr. Schilke, who worked at EB, was present for meetings
        and conversations and received documents showing that EB “ac-
        cepted” “non-conforming” Nuflo parts, but this conclusory descrip-
        tion falls far short of the required particularity. The description
        misses every question on the Costello list, including who did what,
        who said what, and where or when they did or said it.
                In sum, here, just as in Clausen, Costello, and Carrel, the com-
        plaint fails to allege with particularity the necessary connection be-
        tween an underlying fraudulent scheme and the actual present-
        ment or payment of a false claim.
                The cases in which we have reversed False Claims Act rul-
        ings for the defendants are not to the contrary. In both United States
        ex rel. Matheny v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 671 F.3d 1217 (11th
        Cir. 2012), and United States ex rel. Walker v. R&F Properties of Lake
        County, Inc., 433 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005), the relators were per-
        sonally involved in the activities at issue and alleged specific details
        that provided the “indicia of reliability necessary under Rule 9(b).”
        Carrel, 898 F.3d at 1276 (quoting Sanchez, 596 F.3d at 1302). See
        Matheny, 671 F.3d at 1225–26; Walker, 433 F.3d at 1360.
               A case cited by 84Partners, United States v. Hangar One, Inc.,
        was a False Claims Act case brought not by a relator but directly by
        the government. 563 F.2d 1155, 1157 (5th Cir. 1977). Like the case
        at bar, Hangar One arose from the government’s purchase of
USCA11 Case: 21-13673     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 16 of 18

        16                     Opinion of the Court                 21-13673

        allegedly defective materials. Id. But Hangar One did not deal with
        pleading standards. Nor did it deal with the requirement for actual
        presentation or payment of a false claim. The issue instead was
        whether summary judgment was properly entered for the defend-
        ant on the merits. Id. The Fifth Circuit, in a ruling binding here
        under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981)
        (en banc), said the district court improperly discounted the govern-
        ment’s affidavits and that, when the affidavits were properly con-
        sidered, the record presented a factual dispute that could not be
        resolved on summary judgment. Id. at 1157–58. The court also said
        the government was not required to trace the allegedly defective
        materials from the defendant to the point of acceptance by the gov-
        ernment. Id. at 1158. But this says nothing about whether the gov-
        ernment was required to establish a false claim, as it clearly was.
        Indeed, a claim could be false even if the materials were never de-
        livered at all. What matters is not the tracing or delivery of materi-
        als but the presentation or payment of a false claim.
                The second amended complaint fails to allege with particu-
        larity the actual presentation or payment of a false claim. It was
        properly dismissed.
                              VII. Leave To Amend
                 84Partners never asked the district court to grant leave to
        file a third amended complaint. 84Partners says on appeal, though,
        that failing to grant leave was error. The denial of leave would not
        have been an abuse of discretion even had 84Partners asked for it.
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023      Page: 17 of 18

        21-13673                Opinion of the Court                         17

               84Partners attempts to excuse its failure to ask for leave by
        citing comments the district court made at the end of a hearing on
        the motions to dismiss the first amended complaint. The court said
        it would dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice
        and would allow 84Partners to file a second amended complaint.
        The court provided guidance on what a second amended com-
        plaint should include—84Partners should be as specific as it
        could—but the court also said it was “not making any pronounce-
        ments at all.” The court said that if the defendants moved to dis-
        miss the second amended complaint and the court concluded, after
        careful deliberation, that the second amended complaint did not
        state a claim, then “I would likely dismiss it with prejudice at that
        point. If it does state a claim, then the case would go forward . . . .”
               This was by no means a definitive ruling that 84Partners
        would not be given leave to amend further. Now, having not asked
        the district court for leave, 84Partners cannot properly complain
        that leave was not given. See, e.g., Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350,
        1361–62 (11th Cir. 2006).
               More importantly, 84Partners still has not said what else it
        could have alleged in good faith in a third amended complaint to
        cure the deficiencies in the second amended complaint. A plaintiff
        who moves for leave to amend a complaint “must either attach a
        copy of the proposed amendment to the motion or set forth the
        substance thereof.” Id. at 1362. A request for leave, when not set
        out in a motion for leave, still must comply with this requirement.
        Id.
USCA11 Case: 21-13673      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 08/17/2023     Page: 18 of 18

        18                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13673

               Moreover, even when a party has tendered a proposed
        amended complaint in the district court, the party can challenge on
        appeal the denial of leave to amend only by pointing out what was
        different; failure to do so waives the argument. Carrel, 898 F.3d at
        1279. 84Partners cannot point out what was different in a proposed
        third amended complaint because it has not proposed one.
               84Partners knew, after extensive briefing and oral argument
        on the motions to dismiss the first amended complaint, that it was
        required to allege in a second amended complaint all the facts it
        could allege to support the assertion that EB and NNS knowingly
        presented an actual false claim. 84Partners did not hold back; it filed
        a second amended complaint with 525 numbered paragraphs span-
        ning 142 pages. The second amended complaint was dismissed not
        for inartful pleading of a kind that could be cured but because
        84Partners was unable to allege in good faith facts essential to a
        False Claims Act claim against EB or NNS. 84Partners still has been
        unable to point to anything more it could have alleged in good faith
        to cure the second amended complaint’s deficiencies.
                                  VIII. Conclusion
               The district court’s dismissal of the second amended com-
        plaint with prejudice is affirmed.