Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 72: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Civil Procedure
On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in three cases asking the court to resolve a circuit split regarding the application of the particularity pleading requirement for allegations of fraud in False Claims...more
The US' ongoing trade wars—with various trading partners and particularly with China—are everywhere in the news. Putting politics and policy aside, the "trade wars" reflect a basic disagreement over the rules that should...more
The recent federal court opinion issued in United States ex rel. Integra Med Analytics, LLC v. Baylor Scott & White Health, et al, illustrates the continued importance of examining the plausibility of allegations made in qui...more
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently issued a mixed ruling on D-Link Systems’ motion to dismiss in FTC v. D-Link Sys., Inc. D-Link sells routers and Internet protocol (IP) cameras that it...more
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently dismissed a complaint-in-intervention filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in U.S. ex rel. Swoben v. Secure Horizons. As previously reported,...more
The Escobar and Sanford-Brown Decisions - This summer, the United States Supreme Court undertook to resolve the long-running circuit split over the validity and scope of the implied false certification theory of...more
On September 21, 2015, counsel for AT&T, Inc., and other telecommunications providers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split over what relators asserting FCA claims must do to meet Federal Rule of Civil...more
On September 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Chicago dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) case against the City of Chicago, because the qui tam complaint did not satisfy the relevant pleading...more
In an unpublished decision issued on Thursday, August 13, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reemphasized Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s “stringent particularity requirement” when it affirmed a lower court’s...more