HELLER v. BALLINGER

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because relators failed to allege a cognizable federal claim under the AKS, “the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” the remaining state law claim
• stating that “[t]emporal proximity by itself does not show causation, and seven months would create few inferences of cause and effect anyway.”
• stating that “[t]emporal proximity by itself does not show causation, and seven months would create few inferences of cause and effect anyway.”
• finding that but-for causation was not plausibly alleged when \[t]here's not one claim for reimbursement identified with particularity in this case that would not have occurred anyway\
• noting that under Rule 9, a complaint “must specify the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ of the alleged fraudulent scheme” (quoting Sanderson v. HCA-The Healthcare Co., 447 F.3d 873, 877 (6th Cir. 2006))
• interpreting the phrase \resulting from\ in the 2010 amendment as imposing a but-for causation requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).