§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America EX Rel. Et. Al. v. Raytheon Company et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

29 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 255,693 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 269,419 times   367 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' "

  3. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States

    579 U.S. 176 (2016)   Cited 876 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " misrepresentation" about a claim's compliance with the law "must be material to the Government's payment decision in order to be actionable under the [FCA]," and that the Government's payment of "a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated . . . is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material"

  4. Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems

    637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 2,528 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding a complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) where the allegations were lacking in detail

  5. McHenry v. Renne

    84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 4,288 times
    Holding that a pleading that is "argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy," and does not state "who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery" must be dismissed

  6. Allison Engine Co. v. U.S. ex Rel. Sanders

    553 U.S. 662 (2008)   Cited 419 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an action under subsection requires a relater to allege "that the defendant intended that the false record or statement be material to the Government's decision to pay or approve the false claim"

  7. U.S. ex Rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp.

    328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003)   Cited 699 times
    Holding that a court could not dismiss a complaint merely because it contains repetitious and irrelevant matter, as "surplus-age in a complaint can be ignored"

  8. Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co.

    651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 1,361 times
    Holding that Rule 8 is violated when a complaint is excessively "verbose, confusing and almost entirely conclusory"

  9. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co.

    758 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 373 times
    Holding that dismissal of plaintiff's complaint was appropriate as it exceeded seventy pages in length, was confusing, conclusory, and not in compliance with Rule 8

  10. Rowe v. Educ. Credit Management

    559 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 173 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding guaranty agencies act as fiduciaries of the DOE when they operate under FFELP and collecting cases in which other courts hold the same

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 157,899 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,155 times   321 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Rule 10 - Form of Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 10   Cited 19,723 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding exhibits attached to complaint may be treated as part of complaint for purposes of ruling on 12(b) motion

  14. Section 3729 - False claims

    31 U.S.C. § 3729   Cited 6,771 times   633 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable "any person" who knowingly causes false claims to be presented

  15. Section 2433 - Repealed

    10 U.S.C. § 2433

    10 U.S.C. § 2433 Pub. L. 116-283, div. A, title XVIII, §1850(l), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4271] Section, added Pub. L. 97-252, title XI, §1107(a)(1), Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 741, §139b; amended Pub. L. 98-94, title XII, §1268(1), Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 705; Pub. L. 98-525, title XII, §1242(b), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2607; Pub. L. 99-145, title XIII, §1303(a)(2), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 738; renumbered §2433 and amended Pub. L. 99-433, title I, §§101(a)(5), 110 (8), Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 995, 1003

  16. Section 16.301-1 - Description

    48 C.F.R. §§ 16.301-1   Cited 14 times

    Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. These contracts establish an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) without the approval of the contracting officer. 48 C.F.R. §§16.301-1

  17. Section 16.301-2 - Application

    48 C.F.R. §§ 16.301-2   Cited 3 times

    (a) The contracting officer shall use cost-reimbursement contracts only when- (1) Circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed-price type contract (see 7.105); or (2) Uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract. (b) The contracting officer shall document the rationale for selecting the contract type in the written acquisition plan and ensure

  18. Section 16.305 - Cost-plus-award-fee contracts

    48 C.F.R. § 16.305   Cited 2 times

    A cost-plus-award-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a fee consisting of (a) a base amount (which may be zero) fixed at inception of the contract and (b) an award amount, based upon a judgmental evaluation by the Government, sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in contract performance. Cost-plus-award-fee contracts are covered in subpart 16.4, Incentive Contracts. See 16.401(e) for a more complete description and discussion of the application of these contracts