United States Ex Rel. Moore & Co. P.A. v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1729
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Moore & Company (relator) sued LLCs and Korean nationals under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging they procured SPTT fishing licenses by falsely certifying U.S. citizen control and U.S. captains for the vessels.
- Moore learned key facts through discovery in a federal wrongful-death suit it prosecuted (documents, depositions, FOIA records). Those materials alleged Dongwon (a Korean company) actually controlled the LLCs and vessels.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under the FCA public-disclosure bar; the district court treated the bar as jurisdictional and granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), finding the fraud had been publicly disclosed (news articles and FOIA documents) and Moore was not an original source.
- The 2010 PPACA amendments changed the public-disclosure bar: removed explicit "jurisdiction" language, narrowed qualifying disclosures (federal proceedings where government is a party), and broadened the original-source definition to include those who "independently and materially add" to public disclosures.
- The Third Circuit reversed: held the amended public-disclosure bar is nonjurisdictional, agreed the alleged fraud was publicly disclosed via two news articles and FOIA materials, but concluded Moore qualified as an original source because its discovery produced independent information that materially added to publicly disclosed facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the post-2010 FCA public-disclosure bar jurisdictional? | Moore: PPACA removed jurisdictional language; dismissal should be on Rule 12(b)(6). | Defs: Bar remains jurisdictional as applied. | Court: Bar is nonjurisdictional; dismissal should be under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Were the same allegations/transactions publicly disclosed? | Moore: Key facts first uncovered in its civil discovery; public sources were limited and vague. | Defs: Two news articles and FOIA-produced Coast Guard documents disclosed the same transaction. | Court: Yes; news articles + FOIA documents publicly disclosed substantially the same transaction. |
| Is Moore an "original source" under amended § 3730(e)(4)(B)? | Moore: Its discovery produced knowledge independent of and that materially adds to the public disclosures (who, how, when, where). | Defs: Moore only provided cumulative details and background; not a material addition. | Court: Moore is an original source—its discovery produced independent, materially additive details (specific actors, sham ownership, how the scheme operated). |
| Effect of original-source finding on dismissal? | Moore: Original-source status defeats the public-disclosure bar, so case should proceed. | Defs: If original-source fails, dismissal was proper. | Court: Because Moore is an original source, reversal and remand for further proceedings (including unresolved Rule 12(b)(6) motion). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., 776 F.3d 805 (11th Cir. 2015) (amended public-disclosure bar is nonjurisdictional)
- United States ex rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 737 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 2013) (post-PPACA bar is not jurisdictional)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013) (statutory text controls jurisdictional character absent a clear statement)
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401 (2011) (agency FOIA response and accompanying records can qualify as a "report")
- Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (statutory text and linked usages inform interpretation of related provisions)
- United States ex rel. Zizic v. Q2Administrators, LLC, 728 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2013) (defining "allegation" vs. "transaction" in public-disclosure context)
- United States ex rel. Atkinson v. Pa. Shipbuilding Co., 473 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2007) (pre-PPACA original-source analysis requiring independence from public-domain information)