113 F.4th 1294
11th Cir.2024Background
- Bruce Jacobs, a Florida foreclosure attorney, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against JP Morgan Chase, alleging fraudulent endorsements of mortgage notes on loans acquired from Washington Mutual.
- Jacobs claimed JP Morgan Chase used forged signatures of former Washington Mutual employees after the bank's collapse to obtain payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- The district court dismissed Jacobs’s initial complaint for failing to plead fraud with particularity and allowed a final amendment.
- In the amended complaint, Jacobs alleged express and implied false certification and a reverse false claim under the FCA, providing new exhibits but relying on similar factual allegations.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on two grounds: failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b), and the FCA’s public disclosure bar, citing prior publication of substantially similar allegations on three online blogs.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the public disclosure bar independently foreclosed the lawsuit because Jacobs was not an original source and the blog posts qualified as news media disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior blog posts qualify as "news media" for FCA’s public disclosure bar | Blogs are not “news media” because they are individual opinions | Blogs are public, intended to disseminate information; thus “news media” | Blogs qualify as “news media” under FCA |
| Whether plaintiff’s claims are “substantially the same” as public disclosures | Allegations are not identical, merely similar | Significant overlap is sufficient, not identity | Significant overlap meets “substantially the same” requirement |
| Whether Jacobs is an “original source” of the information | Legal practice gave him independent, materially additive knowledge | Allegations do not materially add to already-public information | Jacobs is not an original source; information was already public |
| Whether FCA suit can proceed despite public disclosure | Adds detail and context, not just duplicative of public info | Details are cumulative, not materially additive | Suit barred under FCA public disclosure bar |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., 776 F.3d 805 (11th Cir. 2015) (establishing the three-part test for the FCA’s public disclosure bar and interpreting “news media” to include certain websites)
- United States ex rel. Bibby v. Mortg. Invs. Corp., 987 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2021) (clarifying who may bring FCA suits according to public disclosures)
- Cooper v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 19 F.3d 562 (11th Cir. 1994) (providing framework for public disclosure bar analysis)
- United States v. NEC Corp., 11 F.3d 136 (11th Cir. 1993) (discussing purposes behind FCA and encourage private party involvement while preventing opportunistic suits)