884 F.3d 798
7th Cir.2018Background
- Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (RTSI) held Chicago’s red‑light camera contract; Aaron Rosenberg was RTSI’s VP of Sales/Marketing and participated in a bribery scheme involving City deputy‑commissioner John Bills and consultant Martin O’Malley.
- The Chicago Tribune published investigative articles (beginning Oct. 2012) and RHL (RTSI’s parent) issued a March 2013 press release that publicly disclosed the core facts of the scheme and the City OIG investigation.
- The City OIG interviewed Rosenberg on Feb. 4, 2013; Rosenberg (with counsel and Sidley Austin present) gave detailed statements about the scheme in exchange for expressed immunity; RTSI later fired and sued him.
- Rosenberg filed a qui tam suit under the Chicago False Claims Ordinance (FCO) in April 2014; the City intervened and defendants removed to federal court. Defendants moved to dismiss Rosenberg as relator under the FCO’s public‑disclosure bar.
- The district court dismissed Rosenberg for lack of jurisdiction (public‑disclosure bar) and denied his claim for relator’s share and attorney’s fees; Rosenberg appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bribery allegations were publicly disclosed before suit | Rosenberg argued his inside knowledge and added details meant his complaint was not based on public disclosures | Defendants pointed to Tribune articles and RHL press release that publicly disclosed the critical elements of the scheme before filing | Held: Public disclosure occurred; critical elements were in the public domain before Rosenberg filed |
| Whether Rosenberg’s complaint was “based upon” the public disclosures | Rosenberg claimed his complaint added material details distinct from media/public reports | Defendants argued the complaint was substantially similar and did not present genuinely new, material information | Held: Complaint was based upon public disclosures; additional details were not genuinely new or material |
| Whether Rosenberg was an “original source” (direct, independent knowledge and voluntary disclosure) | Rosenberg contended he had direct knowledge and voluntarily provided information to the OIG before filing | Defendants argued his disclosures were made in response to OIG investigation and immunity assurances, so not voluntary | Held: Not an original source; disclosures were not voluntary because made in response to government inquiry and motivated by self‑interest |
| Whether Rosenberg can recover relator’s share and attorney’s fees after dismissal | Rosenberg argued he is the “person bringing the action” entitled to a share and fees despite jurisdictional dismissal | Defendants relied on Rockwell and the FCO’s jurisdictional bar to say dismissal removes relator status | Held: Rosenberg cannot recover; once dismissed under the jurisdictional public‑disclosure bar and the City intervened, he is not the person who brought the action and is not entitled to proceeds or fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907 (7th Cir.) (three‑step public‑disclosure/original‑source framework)
- Cause of Action v. Chicago Transit Auth., 815 F.3d 267 (7th Cir.) (requirement of genuinely new and material information to avoid public‑disclosure bar)
- Feingold v. AdminaStar Fed., Inc., 324 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.) (definition of public disclosure: critical elements in public domain)
- Rockwell Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (Sup. Ct.) (once relator lacks jurisdictional prerequisites, action brought by government precludes relator’s entitlement)
- United States ex rel. Barth v. Ridgedale Electric Inc., 44 F.3d 699 (8th Cir.) (disclosure in response to government inquiry not voluntary)
- United States ex rel. Paranich v. Sorgnard, 396 F.3d 326 (3d Cir.) (voluntariness undermined where disclosure results from government’s pointed contact)
- United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Rush Univ. Med. Ctr., 680 F.3d 933 (7th Cir.) (genuinely new and material information standard)