Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LeBlanc v. Raytheon Company, 95-1263 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1263 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 09, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: USCA1 Opinion APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge], ___________________ Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges and Lisi*, District Judge. LeBlanc v., ___ _________________________________ Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). Affirmed.
USCA1 Opinion


                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




_________________________

No. 95-1263


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. RONALD A. LEBLANC,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

RAYTHEON COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.

_________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

_________________________

Before

Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges, ______________

and Lisi*, District Judge. ______________

_________________________


Robert D. City, with whom Philip di Domenico and City, _______________ ____________________ _____
Hayes, Meagher & Dissette, P.C. were on brief, for appellant. _______________________________
Martin J. Newhouse, with whom Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and ___________________ _______________________
Ropes & Gray were on brief, for appellee. ____________

_________________________

August 9, 1995
_________________________

____________________
*Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
















SELYA, Circuit Judge. This appeal stems from a so- SELYA, Circuit Judge. ______________

called qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, 31 ___ ___

U.S.C. 3730 (1988). The defendant moved, early on, to dismiss

for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. ___

12(b)(1). The court below granted the motion, writing a careful,

well-reasoned opinion that correctly analyzed and applied the

relevant doctrines. See United States ex rel. LeBlanc v. ___ _________________________________

Raytheon Co., 874 F. Supp. 35 (D. Mass. 1995). ____________

It is our preferred practice that when, as now, "a

trial court has produced a first-rate work product, a reviewing

tribunal should hesitate to wax longiloquent simply to hear its

own words resonate." In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire _________________________________________

Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). That wise adage is ______

fully applicable here. Accordingly, we affirm the order of

dismissal for substantially the reasons elucidated in the opinion

below.

We need go no further. The judgment of the district

court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___





Affirmed. Affirmed. ________












2












Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer