*1 carriers,”8 Second, “[pjroof and that of the re- holding that the MCS-90 en- financial automatically in- dorsement quired responsibility” part policy whether not a motor cludes MCS-90 endorsement “shall carrier re- quested paid for such an endorsement at the principal maintained motor carrier’s a perverse would create incentive. Motor place regulations place of business.”9 The carriers an then would have incentive not carriers, responsibility on motor not comply regulations with the and obtain insurers, expect as one would of reg- the endorsement pay the additional promulgated Secretary ulations it, premium knowing associated with Transportation pursuant authority her the courts would deem the endorsement Further, to regulate motor carriers. as part policy whether or not it was noted, pre- the district court the sanction requested by the carrier. regulation in the scribed relevant for fail- carry required ure to insurance is a The Railroad cites a Sixth Circuit case11 against “person fíne ... knowing- who in support of its contention that a mat- ly responsibility violates” the financial ter of law MCS-90 endorsement incorporated rules.10 should be into policy, if it physically even is not attached to the regulations Since the requiring the policy. That case a dispute involved about MCS-90 endorsement are directed policies covering two an accident carrier, motor we do read them as the primary policy. was The court noted imposing duty on the insurer make that one of the insurers conceded that the sure non-exempt motor carriers se- MCS-90 endorsement was incorporated short, cure the insurance. into policy its as a matter of even law wrong remedy against Railroad seeks the though it policy,12 attached to the party. the wrong and therefore the court was not called upon to decide issue here. The Railroad argues as a matter of public policy AFFIRMED. the endorsement should be part policy. deemed a Assuming
that public policy concerns should inform
our analysis, we question first the fairness placing duty companies on insurance
to determine whether insured is a mo- hire,
tor engages carrier who shipment goods,
interstate of non-exempt vehicles, using non-exempt and is other- America, UNITED STATES subject wise to the Motor Act Carrier Plaintiff-Appellant, complex regulations. carri- motor er position the best know nature of its legal business and the re- SOUTHLAND MANAGEMENT quirements for conducting CORP., that business. al., Defendants, et (2002). Co., § 8. Prestige 49C.F.R. 387.1 11. Cas. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Ins. (6th 1996). F.3d 1340 Cir. 387.7(d). § 9. Id. Id. at 1348 n. 6. 12. (2002); § Id. 387.17 see also 49 U.S.C. 31139(f). *2 McLaurin, Taylor, Charles C. ThadW. Doty,
Jr., Arthur W.
Defendants-Appellees. 00-60267.
No. Appeals, Court of States
Fifth Circuit. 1, 2003.
April (ar- Koppel, Douglas N. John S. Letter trial.4 Those decisions addressed the Justice, gued), Dept, Div.-App. materiality U.S. Civ. allegedly false certifica- DC, Staff, Washington, Plaintiff-Appel- tions and the issue whether the owners lant. submitted false claims. We do *3 not reach questions because we hold Perry Alan M. (argued), W. Roland Slo- that, record, on this no false claims were ver, Forman, Watkins, Perry, Krutz & made. judgment We therefore affirm the Jackson, Tardy, MS, Defendants-Ap- for the owners. pellees. Bradley Tully, William John Robert Hel- BACKGROUND low, Bookman, An- Hooper, Lundy & Los CA, geles, for Federation of American Housing National Act of 19345was Hospitals, Amicus Curiae. encourage enacted to private industry to
provide housing for low-income families.6
It
Department
authorizes the U.S.
Housing
and
Development
Urban
(“HUD”)
guarantee private
mortgage
loans to
housing
construct new
reha-
KING,
and
Judge,
Before
Chief
bilitate old structures for
REAVLEY,
HIGGINBOTHAM,
“families
JOLLY,
incomes so low
they
could
DAVIS, JONES, SMITH,
not other-
WIENER,
decently
wise
house themselves.”7
BARKSDALE,
GARZA,
Private
EMILIO M.
property
receiving
owners
DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART,
nonrecourse
mortgages must
into
“regulatory
enter
CLEMENT,
DENNIS and
Circuit
agreement” with
specifies
HUD which
Judges.
“rents, charges,
op-
and other
methods
REAVLEY,
Judge:
Circuit
eration, in
such form and
such manner
opinion
Secretary
United States seeks False Claims
as
[of
Act1penalties
apart-
from the owners of an
will
purposes
HUD]
effectuate the
of this
”8
ment project
falsely
certifying
section....
the United States
decent, safe,
property
sanitary in Housing
Act9was
provide
enacted to
hous-
requesting supplemental
ing
rent payments
by making payments directly to local
funded under
housing
Section 8 of the United
authorities.
8
added
Section was
Housing
States
Act.2 The
making
district
to this Act in 1974 to authorize the
granted summary judgment
payments”
pri-
for the own- of “assistance
to encourage
ers,3
panel
and a
provide housing.10
of this court remanded
vate
owners to
(2003).
(2001).
§
1. 31
§§
U.S.C. 3729
12
U.S.C.
1701t
1437f(a)
§
(Supp.2003).
2. 42 U.S.C.
17152(d)(3)(2001).
§
8. 12 U.S.C.
(S.D.Miss.2000).
F.Supp.2d
3. 95
629
75-412,
(codified
9. Pub. L. No.
50 Stat. 889
(5th Cir.),
reh’g
4.
management physical inspec- review and a mated cost and time frame for each. Many a “satis- management tion. received the deficiencies were the same as factory” rating report and the stated 1993 and 1994. The report “[m]anagement is be commended for the warned that was not provide brought taken steps planned compliance more into days within 30 secure environment residents.” further subsidy “may be jeopar However, in- physical as a result of the dized.” transmitting HUD’s letter the re property a spection, gave port “below to the Owners warned them that *5 average” rating. report Department “[t]he stated does manage The not allow many of the deficiencies in 1993 had ment noted to continue at this of perform level not been Of the units in- ance.”14 corrected. spected, all but two needed immediate re- In gave late 1996 HUD property each
pairs, although unit was deemed lowest rating “unsatisfactory.” The re- — passable “Housing Quality under HUD’s port “compelling said there were reasons” report The numer- Standards.”13 detailed for this rating, including the fact that ev- and, ous corrective actions for ery inspected unit comply failed to each, listed an estimated cost and time Housing Quality HUD’s Standards. The for frame correction. Several months la- report again cataloged property’s defi- wrote, ter HUD “It is understood and, each, ciencies necessary for listed the readily repairs,” funds are not available for along corrective action estimated but asked that the Owners mindful of be cost and frame. report time also not- safety of tenants and workers and that ed, however, property that the staff were “hazardous” deficiencies be addressed as “very cooperative throughout physical as possible. soon inspection.” accompanied The letter that 1994, report
After Owners all rent- property devoted stated that the could mortgage operate al income pay- present and subsidies to not continue to in its con- dition, property ments and maintenance re- and that failure to make corrections noted, during individually 13. As the district court the time for violation of the civil False issue, Housing Quality Act, period at Stan- citing allegedly Claims the their "false” apply dards to which referred HUD did not to monthly property certifications that the was particular program covering Section decent, safe, However, sanitary. he of- property, they apparently but Owners' bring fered to nonsuit —and to no further guideline measuring used HUD as a for agreed claims—if the Owners to surrender the property. condition of the government's property designee. to the this, immediately agreed Owners to do but the 1996, Attorney began In 14. March the U.S. explain why Attorney record U.S. does not proceedings against property forfeiture probably took no further because action — facilitating illegal drug activity. for role in prop- HUD no take could find one else to letter, subsequent Attorney In a the U.S. erty. against bring threatened to claims the Owners DISCUSSION partic- denial of future in the “could result pro- HUD-sponsored housing ipation” Act, 31 civil Claims U.S.C. False However, in HUD another letter grams. part states: relevant for- wrote, things, other “We look among (a) Any per- Liability certain acts.— for you attempt in an working with ward to son who— satisfactory back to property bring this (1) or knowingly presents, causes condition.” employee an officer or presented, be May inspection was last or a Government States prop- gave the For the second time HUD of the of the Armed Forces member “unsatisfactory” rating. erty an claim a false or fraudulent defi- cataloged property’s again each approval; or [or] the Owners that and advised ciencies uses, (2) makes, or causes manage- does not allow Department “[t]he used, made or record perfor- at this level of to continue ment to get a false or fraudulent statement August the Owners mance.” by the paid approved claim Govern- discontinuing mort- they wrote ment_ funds, due lack gage payments being turned over to is liable the United States Govern- manage prop- They HUD. offered penalty of not less than ment for civil control could be erty charge no until $5,000 $10,000,plus 3 and not more than managed The Owners transferred. damages the amount of times after compensation until without *6 act Government sustains because in July auctioned 1998. property person.... of that proceed- initiated this United States The 5, August 1998. The United States ing on statutory text preceding the civil As that the Owners
claims violated shows, sug as the Act 19 HAP vouch- and the name of Act False Claims because Act at false claims. July gests, 1995 and is aimed they ers submitted between “any as re defines a “claim” falsely certified that statute January 1997 demand, decent, safe, sanitary.15 quest whether under a con and or property was otherwise, money propert certifi- tract for or argues that each or States United including pay- y”16 claim for is made a “false cation constitutes someone— government will at least meaning ... itself—who approval ment or within part government money property 3729(a)(1),” § and also a “false use of 31 U.S.C. pay differently, “request it is the mean- it. Stated statement record within and/or 3729(a)(2).” with a certifi- or demand” made connection ing § of 31 U.S.C. otherwise,” $865,023 the “contract or “contract or cations had used to secure been warranting mak subsides, allegedly housing the Unit- otherwise” because Thus, claim is ing of the claim. whether a ed the certifications States claimed contract, made, regulation, sought depends valid on knowingly false when It it. supposedly or statute that warrants damages, for a total of about $2.5 treble money property for only is those claims million. 3729(c). managed § Management Corp. 16. U.S.C. Southland properly has since been dismissed as a party. is not plight to which a defendant entitled that Consider the of an owner who could subject purposes are of the False to False liability by “false” Claims Act See Consul- Costner URS certifying apartments Claims Act. that his 120 are de- tants, Inc., (8th Cir.1998) cent, safe, given when on any day ... (“[0]nly Attorney those actions the claimant States could decide contrary, [calculated to] the United States to to the perhaps ultimately caus[e] pay money obligated pay jury out it is not convince a to agree. That owner within ... properly considered ‘claims’ would be forced to away walk from the FCA.”); meaning of property early at an sign deterioration. Am. Corp., ex rel. v. N. Constr. Wilkins If no willing one else were to incur the risk (S.D.Tex.2001) (col- F.Supp.2d liability, of False Claims Act tenants would lecting proposition authorities lose housing. That state of affairs a “false is a claim for unacceptable claim” more than one would be to all parties and due). wholly is inconsistent with federal policy. unless this case the Owners sub Furthermore, if enforcement of the con- money they mitted claims for to which dition were left False entitled False Act no Claims sanctions, Claims Act consider the burden 3729(a)(2) liability Although pro arises. Attorney prove U.S. must who hibits the submission of false record or has knowingly falsely. owner certified statement, only it does so when the sub It would not suffice that em- mission of the or statement was record jurors, ployees, prop- or even describe the attempt get done in claim false erty as than less decent. The burden paid. liability There no under this Act prove would be to the state of mind of the for a unless it used false statement he honestly owner: knew he could not get paid.17 claim safe, “decent, describe the we apply When this law sanitary.” HAP Contract and the course of conduct Fortunately prob- for everyone, these Owners, between and the we con *7 lems by are avoided the terms of this upon clude this record that Owners the contract between the HUD Owners and housing entitled to the assistance spelled is where the mechanism out for and, thus, payments sought they made no controlling of payments, the abatement the false claims. Owners, and the entitlement of the when of the condition the deteriorates. The Contract contract, Section to HAP 1.7 the in rele- safe, “Decent, sanitary” mean- and is a part, provides vant as follows: ingful description and useful of and homes Decent, houses, Safe, apartment Units Not and Sani- precise is not c. but tary. measurable. There will be wide difference If the Government notifies the opinion is, not, of of what and what is that Owner he has failed to maintain safe, decent, Decent, Safe, sanitary. dwelling Just look the in unit and in people society Sanitary current attire of our condition and Owner the see decency. the variations in notions of fails to take corrective action within Wilentz, Spit every liability See Hutchins v. & Goldman false statement made to the zer, (3d Cir.2001) (stating government”). impose that the FCA “was intended notice, necessary the they in the that have failed take prescribed time any may exercise specified time action within the
Government corrective contract, including under the rights period.18 assistance housing the abatement that The United States does not contend contin- Family even if the payments, by HUD an abatement however, If, unit. occupy ues that position The central ever exercised. in Family to be rehoused wishes in litigation this has been unit section 8 dwelling another housing pay- that the claims for assistance and assistance the Government does by during ments submitted Owners other 8 funds for not have section may period by complaint, July 1995 the Government covered purposes, such claims, assistance housing use the abated through January purpose for the of rehous- payments i.e., payments to the Own- claims for dwelling ing Family in another entitled, this during because ers were done, is unit. this Owner Where period the Owners were breach of that he will be enti- shall be notified HAP obligation pro- under the Contract to housing resumption tled to assis- decent, safe, sanitary housing. and vide tance for the vacated units payments HAP ignores is Con- What this (1) Decent, if unit is restored explicitly tract addresses a breach of (2) Safe, condition, Sanitary and remedy: provides specific nature and does move Family willing Owners are notified HUD when the (3) unit, and into the back restored they prop- have failed to maintain the expenses for the deduction made decent, safe, erty condition Family for incurred both action must taken corrective moves. notice, specified in the the time within Any d. Abatement. Notification of entitled to Owners continue to be receive housing abatement of assistance housing payments during the assistance pro- payments shall be effective until period corrective action vided in notification to the written writing have they notifies them Owner. Government shall ac- necessary failed to take the corrective promptly notify Family any housing payments tion and that such abatement. During ac- will be abated. the corrective Thus, Contract, according to then, period, claims assis- tion decent, safe, is not and sani- not false be- tance claims with the tary HUD chooses work *8 money they are claims for to which cause remedy property’s Owners to condi- (and pro- the Owners entitled tion, the remain to hous- Owners entitled operate the vide the both to wherewithal ing pro- HUD assistance until necessary property and to take the correc- notice, a prescribes vides written time for actions). action, tive corrective and notifies Owners During period, respect, perhaps HAP Contract is internal- this corrective action inconsistent, ly provisions, view it clearly contemplates Contract the con- but in of its housing application receipt of understandable how Owners tinued for and least to payments, no to could have continued use the HAP voucher assistance with modification contractually requirement certifica- the contractual that the Owners form with decent, safe, certify property is and monthly tion that the in the HAP voucher decent, safe, sanitary. sanitary. property is and In this as a Course Conduct Claims Act matter of The judg- law. ment of the district court is AFFIRMED. exchanges par- and conduct of the that ties demonstrated JONES, EDITH H. Judge, Circuit with keep to payments continued in effort SMITH, whom JERRY E. RHESA provide apartments and to habitable BARKSDALE, HAWKINS DeMOSS and the means to take action the corrective CLEMENT, Judges, join Circuit specially requested During by period HUD. concurring: by complaint, July time covered I am delighted that the entire court has January 1997, signifi- through there was seen fit to deliver the owners of the Jack- in- property cant evidence that was Square Apartments son from expo- further uninhabitable, creasingly and that HUD to Act liability. sure False Claims One had that fallen property concluded had may readily infer majority from the hold- decent, safe, stan- below the ing that this a that case should never time, willing dard. At the same HUD was have brought. been to work with the Owners to continue with bring to back efforts Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable Moreover, compliance. into HUD seemed the majority’s rationale that excludes the recognize property’s noncompli- parties’ dealings from the False Claims partially explained ance was at least solely Act pro- because of HUD’s contract nearby activity. lack funds and criminal theory visions. This contract-based was 1995, perhaps In lack of recognizing the court, never presented to district repairs, funds for routine maintenance it, upon by not ruled and was never briefed HUD to at asked Owners least address to this court—until counsel were ordered presented “hazardous” deficiencies to submit letter briefs less than week danger safety to the and work- of tenants en oral argument. before banc As mat- In property’s ers. following re- restraint, of prudence judicial ter date, ceipt rating its lowest authorities, under this court’s we almost “looking] wrote that it was forward never decide cases on issues or theories you working attempt bring in an litigated the trial court. this back satisfactory condi- Brace, 255- tion.” (5th Cir.1998) banc) (en (en banc court declined banc an to consider en issue nei- The undisputed exchanges conduct and preserved pre- ther court nor district during parties between the appellate panel: sented to “... review we demonstrates, period only entire only us; presented we issues do promptly paid, the vouchers were but that not craft new issues or search for them in parties regarded all them entitled be short, .... record is not us paid. present- to decide should which issues ed, or try to otherwise the case
CONCLUSION parties.”) majority evidently The court’s *9 exceptional We hold that under the HAP is such Contract believe this an case and on this record Owners enti- analysis the because their affords a “narrow- pay- summary tled to the affirming judg- receive er” basis for they mind, sought during my excluding ments that correc- ment. To whether period tive action Their claims con- category issue. entire HUD contracts and dealings therefore cannot be under the false False tractual from False Claims 678 imposes liability The False Claims Act applying than well-es- “narrower”
Act1 is “[a]ny person knowingly presents, who on the Act to the under defenses tablished to be to an officer or presented, or causes eye is in the the behold- us facts before employee the United States Govern addition, in the broader ramifica- But er. claim for ment ... false or fraudulent reason- unprecedented of the court’s tions knowingly approval; or [or] from contractual ing, flows standard get ... makes ... false statement probably of the sort that exist provisions paid approved false fraudulent claim federal throughout the vast breadth of by 31 U.S.C. the Government.” are government contracting, uncertain and 3729(a)(1) (2) (2000). statute, § The utterly unexplored. have been which dates from Civil War era view, my preferable antecedents, “narrow” originally even older was prevent types on the “all of fraud” passed of this case is based resolution against government litigated raised and the district issues might in financial loss. result concerning whether the owners Co., 228, 390 States U.S. “decent, sani- falsely as safe and certified Neifert-White 232, 959, 961, 1061 88 S.Ct. 19 L.Ed.2d tary” apartment project a low-income (1968). parties in The issues raised Jackson, Mississippi in order to obtain this en same banc court as I affirm on alter- HUD subsidies.2 would pressed by owners the district court: particular on the grounds based native monthly certifications that whether First, facts of case. defendants’ decent, project sanitary safe certifications, in their monthly included keep were material to HUD’s decision to reimbursement, seeking not vouchers it; subsidizing the owners whether continue material HUD’s decision to filed false claims. subsidy payments, they there- making grant review the district court’s We false “to fore did constitute statements novo, judgment summary applying de get” paid. a false claim 31 U.S.C. same standard as the district court. Bos 3729(a)(2) (2000). Second, § defen- Assocs., Colony ton Ins. Co. v. Tiner Old “knowingljr” did dants submit (5th Cir.2002). “Sum gov- claims for reimbursement because the mary judgment proper only plead ‘if the ernment determined the amount of funds ings, depositions, interrogato answers to de- project, to maintain the available file, together ries on and admissions spent every penny of fendants those funds affidavits, no any, show that there is project, government on the and the knew genuine issue fact and that as material project’s essential condition. moving party judgment entitled (2000). 3729(b) U.S.C. ” as a matter of law.’ Turner v. Houma got exactly willing pay it was for. what Bd., Mun. Fire & Police Civ. Serv. (5th Cir.2000) Reavley’s Judge opinion adequately (quoting Fed. 56(c)). states the facts. R.CivJP. claims, inargu- parties’ pursuing FCA at least for contract is HUD standard from decent, Further, able violations of the safe and projects. form for Section not- standard, where such contracts exist. infra, deposition testimony ed established that practically never invoked contract rem- owners, against rehearing project grant no matter how 2. of en banc vacated the edies decision, ap- unnecessary properties panel it is discuss "troubled” their were. HUD so parently opinion barred the court’s decision further. will be
679
payment
position
unsupported
A. The
vouchers were not mate-
is
by
overbroad
making.
relevant law.
rial to
decision
accepted
The
materiality
definition of
panel opinion has been
Because the
va-
claims,
for civil FCA
as for other federal
rehearing
banc,
cated
the order for
en
statutes, equates materiality
“halving]
longer
doubt
any
there should no
tendency
influence,
natural
a
or [being]
materiality
an element of a civil
is
False
capable
influencing,
of
decision
past precedent
Claims Act
Our
case.
body
decisionmaking
to which it was ad-
every circuit that has addressed the issue
Kungys
States,
dressed.”
v. United
485
have so concluded.3 This conclusion is
759, 770,
1537, 1546,
U.S.
108 S.Ct.
99
a
strengthened
involving allegedly
case
(1988).
L.Ed.2d
Supreme
839
The
Court
pay-
false certifications contained in official
adopted
general
this “more
formulation” of
vouchers, because,
liability
ment
for FCA
materiality,
judgment
“because
arise,
a false certification must be a
question
materiality]
[i.e. of
does not lend
get”
“false
statement” made “to
false
771,
itself to mechanical resolution.” Id. at
3729(a)(2)
paid.
claim
See SI U.S.C.
merits
sanitary contractual standard. HUD did
pay,
to
but such is not
decision
ment’s
procedure
contractual
not utilize the
Thompson,
this
invariably the case.
required to
whereby HUD was
inform
reality
that
when
stated
court reflected
im-
noncompliance
of
and to
owners
their
FCA,
that,
liability
a
create
under
plan upon
pose a suitable corrective action
compliance must
a
false certification of
Only
comply,
failed to
them.
the owners
government
a
“prerequisite”
obtaining
notice,
HUD, as one of its
after
could
125
F.3d
902.
Thompson,
benefit.
remedies, contractually
possible
elect
demonstrate
that an
the facts
Where
housing
payments.
assistance
discontinue
formally
a
though
requiring
certi-
agency,
any
fact
that HUD never invoked
fication,
payment
did not condition
on its
against
and continued
remedy
the owners
indeed,
responsible gov-
veracity, and
payments throughout
peri-
making
did not even see or re-
ernment officials
od
this lawsuit demonstrates
covered
question,
view the certification
then
monthly
immateriality of the owners’
material,
is not
certi-
certification
certifications to
of
vouchers.
give rise to
li-
fied
FCA
statement will
Second, it
practice,
was HUD’s “normal
See,
rel.
ability.
e.g., United States ex
in keeping
parties’
respective
with the
(9th
Anton,
1261, 1266
Hopper v.
HAP
rights
obligations
under the
con-
Cir.1996) (certification of assurances that
tract,
re-
to allow owners to continue to
comply
applica-
district
school
would
subsidies while
owners worked
ceive
under
“prerequisite,”
ble federal law not
deficiencies
identi-
[had]
correct
case,
receipt
of
of that
federal
facts
Indeed,
proof
it is
from the
fied.
evident
funds). Further,
IDEA
pay-
that HUD
[made]
any
government
hold
of
certifica-
kind
expectation
with the
that the own-
ments
tion
in connection with federal
er/recipients
payments
[would] use
government payment and reimbursement
bring
property up
to standard.”
law,
as matter of
vouchers is material
Mgmt. Corp.,
United States v. Southland
could erase the crucial
government
(S.D.Miss.2000).
629,
F.Supp.2d
95
637-38
“punitive”
distinction
FCA liabili-
between
acknowledged
the dis-
ty5
contract
ordinary
breaches of
court that HUD often elects to con-
trict
broad,
expedient
requiring
simple
particular
for a
tinue
certifications.
boilerplate
knowledge
property,
con-
despite
case
The circumstances
demon-
HAP
trary to
owners’
voucher certifi-
of law that the
strate as matter
owners’
cation,
decent,
does
meet
safe
HUD’s
monthly certifications on their
vouch-
standard,
the alterna-
since
“decent,
project
ers
safe
payments may
tive—discontinuance
—
sanitary”
not material to HUD’s deci-
of tenants.
work to
detriment
paying
sions to continue
subsidies.
project manager Vicki
testified
Gross
First,
it is clear that HUD was
although
stopped payments,
any
never
on
she
project,
fifty-four projects
condition of the
for which she was re-
aware
basic
noncompliance
sponsible,
because
HUD never
that their
informed
owners
Bd.,
486,
244
v. Orleans Parish Sch.
FCA actions for treble actions and
baldi
Civil
denied,
penalties
Agency
(5th Cir.2001),
“punitive.”
Vermont
n.
cert.
491 and
1078,
Stephens,
ex rel.
Natural Res. v. United States
S.Ct.
good presented a false claim.
have Lamers, (“imprecise 168 F.3d at SATURN DISTRIBUTION interpretation or differences statements CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, growing disputed legal question out of FCA”) (citation under the are ... not false SATURN, LTD., omitted). PARAMOUNT Defendant-Appellant. that even if suggests No. 02-20431. project’s something HUD knew about owners, condition, regular- visited who of Appeals, States Court ly, noncompliance knew more about their Fifth Circuit. decent, with the safe and stan- April 2003. wholly unpersuasive. The dard. This is correctly parried district conten- by pointing
tion out that HUD now relies
on stated in its exactly the deficiencies Indeed, July And Attorney was foreclosed 1998. the United States threat- that, manage ened 1996 to sue the owners for in March HUD had the owners after penalties FCA based on their certifica- three apartments another months. tions, but HUD subsidies continued until