Associates Against Outlier Fraud v. Huron Consulting Group, Inc.Associates Against Outlier Fraud v. Huron Consulting Group, Inc.
Robert Salcido, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Huron Consulting Group, LLC, Huron Consulting Services, LLC.
Michael D. Leffel (Michael J. Tuteur, on the brief), Foley & Lardner, LLP, Madison, Wisconsin, for Appellеes Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. d/b/a/ Empire Medicare Services.
Present: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-relator Associatеs Against Outlier Fraud (“relator“) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.), granting summary judgmеnt in favor of defendants Huron Consulting Group, Inc., Huron Consulting Group, LLC, and Huron Consulting Services, LLC (collectively, “Huron“), Empire Health Choice Assurance, Inc., and Empire Medicare Services (collеctively, “Empire“). Relator alleged that Huron violated the False Claims Act,
Thе district court‘s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. United States ex rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 601 F.3d 94, 103 (2d Cir. 2010), rev‘d on other grounds, --- U.S. ---, 131 S.Ct. 1885, 179 L.Ed.2d 825 (2011). We conclude, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court‘s February 16, 2012 order, that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to
We review the district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). “Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. In making this determination, we “resolve аll ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “[w]here thе record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
A review of the record confirms, as the district court concluded in its March 4, 2013 memоrandum order, that relator has failed to identify any statute or regulation prohibiting Huron‘s claim submission practices. Assuming arguendo that the relevant statutes and regulations prohibit increasing charges unrelated to costs, there is not sufficient evidence in the record to permit a rational factfinder to find that this occurred here.
For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in relator‘s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.