United States Ex Rel. Seal 1 v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
429 F. App'x 818
11th Cir.2011Background
- Olsen, a relator, filed a qui tam FCA suit alleging Lockheed submitted false claims to the USAF under the F-22 contract.
- Government declined to intervene; Olsen served the complaint on Lockheed.
- Contract involved 648 F-22s for roughly $87 billion; Olsen worked 1995–1999 as a senior engineer on the project.
- Olsen alleged Lockheed used inferior coatings harming stealth and that he reported defects to superiors who allegedly misrepresented them to the USAF.
- He claimed misrepresentations continued through October 2004 and likely beyond; the district court dismissed for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) and for other deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olsen pled FCA fraud with particularity for 1995–1999 claims | Olsen maintained specific false statements and submission of claims were made. | Lack of who, what, where, when, and how; insufficient details to support false-claim submission. | No reversible error; dismissal affirmed for 1995–1999 period. |
| Whether Olsen pled FCA fraud with particularity for post-1999 to 2004 claims | Olsen alleged ongoing misrepresentations and continued defective claims. | Allegations based on information and belief with no specific false statements or claim specifics. | No reversible error; dismissal affirmed for 1999–2004 period. |
| Whether the complaint was barred by the FCA statute of limitations | Alleged ongoing fraud extending through 2004 and possibly to present. | Limitations bar claims lacking specificity; time-barred for some periods. | Not reached/necessary to decide because 9(b) dismissal affirmed; no need to reach statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Clausen v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 290 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2002) (pleading requires time, place, and substance of fraud; specifics of alleged acts)
- United States ex rel. Sanchez v. Lymphatx, Inc., 596 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (detail of who, what, where, when, how; information and belief insufficient)
- Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2005) (information-and-belief allegations lack reliability absent specifics)
- United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming Rule 9(b) dismissal where elaborate scheme lacked particularized payment submissions)