COREY L. MAZE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motions to dismiss (docs. 32, 34, 36, 54, and 62) and Relators' motion for default judgment (doc. 76). On February 19, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the pending motions to dismiss and the pending Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant, Barbara Murdock.
In their various motions, the Defendants have asked the Court to dismiss all of Relators' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) and 9(b). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss an action that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Chapman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 442 Fed. Appx. 480, 482 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the factual allegations in the complaint as true, United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 327 (1991), and construes all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 598 (1989).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) provides an additional requirement with respect to allegations of fraud. Rule 9(b) states: "(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally." "In an action under the False Claims Act, Rule 8's pleading standard is supplemented but not supplanted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)." Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan University, 780 F.3d 1039, 1051 (11th Cir. 2015). While the relator may allege scienter generally, they must also "`state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.'" Id.
Relators Culpepper and Wren have filed a First Amended qui tam Complaint alleging that Defendants violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. The Relators assert a variety of claims under the False Claims Act against all eight Defendants. As stated on the record at the hearing, the Court
As stated on the record, the Court finds that the Relators have stated a claim with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss Count I as to Defendants BJCTA, Strada, and Murdock. The Relators may proceed with Count I as to those Defendants. However, the Court finds any claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) against Defendant Watters are
As stated on the record, the Court finds that the Relators have stated a claim with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss as to Count II. The Relators may proceed with Count II as to all Defendants named in Count II.
As stated on the record, the Court finds that Count III is
Count IV is
As stated on the record, the Court finds that Count V is
As stated on the record, the Court will allow the Relators to proceed on the "reverse false claim" theory alleged in Count VI as to Defendants BJCTA, Strada, Watters, and Murdock. But, as also stated on the record, the Court preserves those Defendants' argument that a reverse false claim cannot arise from the failure to report a false claim. Thus, the Court may entertain an additional motion to dismiss and/or a motion for summary judgment regarding the Relators' reverse false claims count. The Court finds any claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G) against Defendants Skye Connect and Gordon are
As stated on the record, the Court finds that the Relators have stated a claim with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss Count VII as to Defendants BJCTA, Strada, Watters, and Murdock. The Relators may proceed with Count VI as to those Defendants. The Court finds any claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C) against Defendants Skye Connect and Gordon are
As stated on the record, the Court finds that the Relators have stated a claim under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss Count VIII. The Relators conceded that this count may only be properly brought against Defendant BJCTA and therefore, to the extent that it was unclear which Defendants this count was brought against, the Court finds that this Count may only proceed against Defendant BJCTA.
In addition to the motions to dismiss, the Court also reviewed the Relators' pending Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Barbara Murdock (doc. 76). Before filing a motion for default judgment, a plaintiff must ask the Clerk of Court for an entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). According to the docket, Relators have not requested an entry of default, and the Clerk has not entered default against Defendant Murdock. Consequently, the Court
For the reasons explained above and stated on the record at the recent hearing in this matter, the Court Counts III, IV, and V are