Dated: September 23, 2013 ____________/s/________________ Paul D. Scott pdscott@lopds.com California State Bar No. 145975 Admitted Pro Hac Vice ____________/s/________________ Lani Anne Remick laremick@lopds.com California State Bar No. 189889 U.S.D.C. No. PA0045 Jon L. Praed U.S.D.C. No. 450764 D.C. Bar No. 51665 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C. Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 981-1212 Fax: (415) 981-1215 Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis 26 Likewise relator has also stated a post-FERA claim for conspiracy to submit reverse false claims based on conduct occurring after May 20, 2009. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C); SAC, Count Seven.

1 136154. WHEREFORE, Relator prays that this Court enter judgment on behalf of the Relator and against Defendants for the following: a. Damages in the amount of three (3) times the actual damages suffered by the United States Government as a result of Defendants’ conduct; b. Civil penalties against Defendants equal to $11, 000 for each violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729; c. The maximum amount allowed pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d); d. All costs and expenses of this litigation, including attorney’s fees and costs of court; e. Pre-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law; and f. All other relief on behalf of Relator or the United States Government to which they may be entitled and that the Court deems just and proper.

These are the 5,995 claims TCH and THA submitted to the Medicare and Medicaid programs using the 14 DRGs for which they were reimbursed $74,234,781.00. Pursuant to the FCA, the government is entitled to recover treble the amount of its damages, plus a per-claim penalty for the money paid to the defendants as a result of their false claims, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a); Rogan, 517 F.3d at 453. IV.

at 22. Further, Allison Engine addressed whether liability attached, under either 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(2) or (a)(3), to a subcontractor who presented a false certification to a private entity receiving government funds. See 553 U.S. 672.

Moreover, it was entirely foreseeable by the other defendants that Armstrong and Bruyneel would continue to lie about doping. Accordingly, each of the alleged conspirators in this case has co-conspirator liability under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C) for the overt acts of Lance Armstrong and Bruyneel after the passage of FERA. IV.

endants with prejudice to the extent they stem from any claims submitted to Kaiser because Relator Liza Martinez (“Relator”) has failed to allege a plausible claim as to why Defendants would be liable for these claims; 3. The Court dismisses Counts I – II set forth in paragraphs 77–86 as to all Defendants because the allegations do not constitute a plausible relief under the FCA and are not sufficiently specific or particular about the claims at issue; 4. The Court dismisses Count III set forth in paragraphs 82-86 with prejudice as to all Defendants because Relator has not alleged that Defendants knowingly retained an overpayment by any means whatsoever and, therefore, cannot state a claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G); 5. The Court dismisses Claim IV set forth in paragraphs 87-90 as to all Defendants on the grounds that Relator has not alleged that Defendants agreed to conspire to violate the FCA or had the requisite intent and, therefore, cannot state a claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C). / / / / / / / / / Case 8:15-cv-01521-JLS-DFM Document 33-2 Filed 04/19/17 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2091201.1 3 8:15-CV-01521-JLS-DFMx [PROPOSED] ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Dated: ________________, 2017 By: HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON United States District Judge Case 8:15-cv-01521-JLS-DFM Document 33-2 Filed 04/19/17 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:196

That Defendants cease and desist from violating the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq.; 2. That this Court enter judgment against Defendants in an amount equal to three times the amount of damages the United States has sustained because of Defendants’ actions, plus a civil penalty of $11,000 for each violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729; 3. That Relators be awarded the maximum amount allowed pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d); 4.

H. MOODY’S FAILS TO ADDRESS OTHER CLAIMS Dismissal of the amended complaint is also unwarranted because Moody’s fails to address, and has waived the opportunity to address, various claims of Relator. Specifically, Moody’s does not address the claim that Moody’s sales of ratings delivery service (“RDS”), including to the Government, constitutes a direct false claim for payment under either 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) or (2). ¶¶ 77-80.

2. Statutory Basis for Damages An individual who violates the FCA is liable to the United States for civil penalties of “not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.” See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a); see also Cook Cty., Ill. v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119, 120 (2003) (discussing the treble damages provision). A purpose of the multiple damages provision of the FCA is to make the Government whole for its losses.

The conduct prohibited is the making of a material false statement. 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(1)(B). By its very terms, §3729(a)(1)(B) is based not upon transactions but upon 19 Regardless of which standard applies to the current complaint, ―the identity of the person or entity who submitted or caused to be submitted a claim is not an element of a § 3729(a)(2) cause of action.