§Why CasetextPricing

Health Choice Group, LLC v. Bayer Corporation et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

35 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,563 times   364 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  2. U.S. ex Rel. Grubbs v. Kanneganti

    565 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 776 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants received adequate notice in a False Claims Act case where the complaint alleged a scheme to submit false claims and enough details that the defendants—who "will be in possession of the most relevant records, such as patients’ charts, doctors’ notes, and internal billing records"—could adequately investigate and defend the claims

  3. Williams v. WMX Technologies, Inc.

    112 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,027 times
    Holding Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff plead the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud

  4. Griffin v. Irvin

    496 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2007)   Cited 663 times
    Holding that the language in the Equal Protection Clause "may, as it does here, simply operate at too high a level of generality" to make prior case law unnecessary, and that the broad legal principles in "class of one" cases were inapplicable because "the precise facts of a case are critical in evaluating a 'class of one' claim"

  5. United States ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.

    125 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 674 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an AKS violation may support a claim under the FCA under a false certification theory

  6. United States v. Solvay Pharm., Inc.

    871 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2017)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that employees failed to show pretext where they "admit[ted] that they violated [the employer's] marketing policies and that employees may be terminated for marketing policy violations."

  7. United States ex rel. Vavra v. Brown

    727 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2013)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a corporation can be held vicariously liable under section 55 of the AKA and remanding the case to the district court to determine whether KBR officials acted under apparent authority in accepting kickbacks for the purposes of a knowing violation of the AKA

  8. United States ex rel. Wood v. Allergan, Inc.

    246 F. Supp. 3d 772 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding compliance with the AKS a "'material' condition of payment"

  9. United States v. Abbott Labs.

    858 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2017)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that summaries of documents that were submitted to the FDA and that the FDA made publicly available prior to the qui tam suit's filing constituted public disclosures

  10. United States v. Shoemaker

    746 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that the defendant who was "authorized to act on behalf of [a hospital that received in excess of $10,000 a year from a federal grant] with respect to its funds" was an agent for purposes of § 666

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 21,902 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 1001.952 - Exceptions

    42 C.F.R. § 1001.952   Cited 128 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Concerning "payment made by a lessee to a lessor"