United States Ex Rel. Heineman-Guta v. Guidant Corp., 718 F.3d 28

Heineman-Guta filed a qui tam FCA action against Guidant and Boston Scientific alleging a kickback scheme to promote their cardiac devices.
Bennett (George) had previously filed a related qui tam against BSC; government declined intervention and Bennett was later dismissed.
Heineman-Guta filed her complaint Nov 10, 2009 (amended Jan 30, 2012) under seal; Bennett remained pending earlier.
The district court dismissed Heineman-Guta’s amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, applying the first-to-file bar (§ 3730(b)(5)).
It held Bennett provided the necessary preclusive notice as the pending first-filed complaint, rejecting Heineman-Guta’s Rule 9(b) sufficiency argument.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding § 3730(b)(5) does not require Rule 9(b) heightened pleading in the first-filed complaint; essential facts suffice to alert the government.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3730(b)(5) requires Rule 9(b) pleading in the first-filed complaint.	Heineman-Guta argues Bennett must meet Rule 9(b) to bar her later action.	BSC argues first-to-file does not incorporate Rule 9(b) requirements.	No; first-filed need only allege essential facts, not Rule 9(b) pleading.

United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., 579 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (first-to-file provides notice of essential facts to deter duplicative suits)
United States ex rel. LaCorte v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 149 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 1998) (essential facts concept guiding first-to-file notice)
United States ex rel. Batiste v. SLM Corp., 659 F.3d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (first-to-file need not satisfy Rule 9(b) while ensuring notice to government)
Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 431 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 2005) ( Sixth Circuit's Rule 9(b) approach deemed inapplicable here)
United States v. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., 507 F.3d 720 (1st Cir. 2007) (general FCA context about private relators)