Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.
637 F.3d 1047
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cafasso, relator, alleged GDC4S defrauded the government by withholding disclosure of ATIRP subject inventions and licensing rights.
- She reported concerns about GE04582 and alleged a scheme to deprive the government of rights, leading to her termination and departmental elimination.
- Before leaving, Cafasso copied about eleven gigabytes of data from GDC4S computers; GDC4S sought a TRO in state court for confidentiality breaches.
- The district court sealed the federal case, allowed state-court notices, and later vacated sealing after Cafasso disrupted the state action; the Arizona Court of Appeals later reversed some orders.
- GDC4S moved for Rule 12(c) dismissal; the district court granted summary judgment on remaining FCA-related claims, and awarded partial attorneys’ fees to GDC4S; Cafasso appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FCA claim is sufficiently pleaded (9(b) and plausibility). | Cafasso argues FCA claims are pleaded with particularity and plausibility. | GDC4S contends no false claim or plausible FCA theory is pleaded. | Rule 12(c) dismissal affirmed; no false claims pleaded. |
| Whether Cafasso should be allowed to amend after late-stage dismissal. | Cafasso seeks to amend to cure deficiencies. | GDC4S argues amendment would be futile and overly lengthy. | District court did not abuse discretion; denial of leave to amend affirmed. |
| Whether Cafasso’s retaliation claim survives summary judgment. | Cafasso asserts causal link between protected conduct and termination. | GDC4S argues lack of causation and no cat’s paw evidence. | Summary judgment affirmed; no prima facie causal connection shown. |
| Whether Cafasso violated the confidentiality agreement and whether public policy exemptions apply. | Cafasso argues public policy permits disclosure to pursue FCA claims. | GDC4S contends no viable public policy exception covers extreme, indiscriminate copying. | Confidentiality breach upheld; no public policy exception sufficient to override. |
| Whether fee award to GDC4S for the contract claim was appropriate. | Relator’s conduct warrants a deterrent, not fee shifting. | Fees are limited to prevailing contract claim; deterrence concerns are acknowledged but not controlling. | Affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard governs complaints, including FCA claims)
- Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 9(b) requires particularity in fraud allegations)
- Ebeid ex rel. United States v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards for FCA claims; identify false claims)
- United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2002) (false-claim requirement for FCA claims; pleading standards)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (U.S. 2011) (cat’s paw liability and causation in employment decisions)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (prolix, confusing complaints; Rule 8 clarity requirement)
- Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 530 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2008) (length per se not a basis to dismiss; context matters)
- United States v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 195 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 1999) (reverse false claims and false-claim concepts)