Debra Leveski v. ITT Educational Services, Inc

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that allegations not substantially similar because they covered an entirely different time period, included wrongdoing by a separate department, pertained to a more sophisticated scheme, and named specific individuals
• holding relator was an original source where knowledge was “personal and spe-' cific to her; it [wa]s not second- or third-hand evidence learned from another source”
• noting that relator “need not produce copies of the [agreements] in which [defendant] certified compliance with the [Higher Education Act] at the outset of her lawsuit”
• finding fact that Leveski did not know the value of her knowledge until speaking with a lawyer and doing independent research did not vitiate the independence of that knowledge
• finding the public disclosure bar did not apply where the “scheme alleged by [the relator], in contrast” to the allegations made by prior relators, “involves a much more sophisticated—and more difficult to detect—violation of Department of Education requirements”
• no identification of specific certification, but inferring that a certification must have been submitted because the defendant could not otherwise have obtained its funding from the government

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).