United States Ex Rel. Batiste v. SLM Corp.
398 U.S. App. D.C. 110
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Batiste filed a 2008 qui tam action on behalf of the U.S. against SLM under FCA §§3729-3732; Zahara had filed a 2005 qui tam against SLM/SAC alleging nationwide forbearance fraud; Zahara’s complaint was later dismissed without prejudice; district court held the Zahara complaint barred Batiste under FCA first-to-file §3730(b)(5) because it alleged the same material elements of fraud; district court dismissed Batiste with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; this appeal concerns whether the first-to-file bar requires Rule 9(b) pleading or that the Zahara case be pending under §3730(b)(5) and whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FCA §3730(b)(5) require the first-filed complaint to meet Rule 9(b) standards? | Batiste argues 9(b) should apply to first-filed complaints. | SLM argues no 9(b) requirement for first-to-file bar. | No, 9(b) not required for first-to-file bar. |
| Do Zahara and Batiste allege the same material elements of fraud to trigger the first-to-file bar? | Batiste contends different schemes. | Zahara and Batiste allege the same nationwide forbearance fraud. | Yes, same material elements bar later action. |
| Was the Zahara complaint still a pending action to trigger the first-to-file bar against Batiste? | Batiste contends Zahara not controlling due to pleading standards. | Zahara remained a pending action that bars subsequent actions. | Affirmed; Zahara's status supports bar. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice or did Batiste waive this argument? | Batiste argues dismissal should not be with prejudice. | Batiste waived by not seeking leave to amend. | Batiste waived; dismissal with prejudice affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 318 F.3d 214 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (first-to-file rule promotes government recovery and prevents copycat suits)
- Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2001) (same material elements suffices for first-to-file bar)
- Springfield Terminal Ry. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (twin goals of FCA first-to-file rule)
- Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 431 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 2005) (argument for heightened pleading standards in first-to-file context)
- Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2009) (assesses identity of fraud elements under first-to-file)