Rose et al v. Stephens Institute

Filing 170

ORDER re supplemental briefing. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 3/9/2016. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SCOTT ROSE, et al.,

v.

9
10

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

STEPHENS INSTITUTE,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 09-cv-5966-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8

12
13
14

Based on the arguments presented at the hearing on defendant’s motion for

15

summary judgment, the court directs the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding two

16

issues.

17

First, defendant is directed to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed ten pages,

18

on the issue of the “public disclosure bar” and whether it implicates this court’s subject

19

matter jurisdiction over the case. Defendant should also present facts that explain why

20

this argument was not included in its motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s brief

21

must be filed by March 16, 2016, and plaintiffs shall have until March 23, 2016 to file a

22

response, which shall not exceed ten pages.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Second, plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental brief regarding the meaningful
difference (if any) between the two asserted causes of action. The first cause of action is
brought under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), which applies to anyone who “knowingly
presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.”
The second cause of action, brought under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) covers anyone
who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement

1

ma
aterial to a false or frau
f
udulent clai
im.” On the face, the relevant d
eir
e
difference a
appears to

2

be that subse
ection (A) re
equires a fa
alse/fraudulent claim, w
whereas su
ubsection (B requires
B)

3

a false record
f
d/statement made in co
t
onnection w a false claim (as long as the
with

4

rec
cord/statem
ment is mate
erial). Plain
ntiffs did no address t
ot
this distinction in their papers, nor

5

did they adeq
d
quately expl
lain at the hearing how their evidence relate to the tw causes of
h
w
es
wo
o

6

of
act
tion and wh
hether different types/c
categories o evidence are used to support the two
e

7

diff
ferent claim Plaintiff are there
ms.
fs
efore directe to file a supplemen brief, no to
ed
ntal
ot

8

exc
ceed five pages, on th issue. Plaintiffs’ br must be filed by Ma
his
P
rief
e
arch 16, 20
016, and

9

def
fendant sha have unt March 23 2016 to f a respo
all
til
3,
file
onse, also n to excee five
not
ed

10

pages.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: March 9, 2016
h
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2