United States Ex Rel. Ge v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court \did not abuse its discretion\ in denying relator's Rule 59(e) motion \without opinion\
• noting that plaintiffs must state “with particularity the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that relator can satisfy Rule 9(b) “without necessarily providing details as to each false claim”
• explaining that a \district court cannot allow an amended pleading where a final judgment has been rendered unless that judgment is first set aside or vacated\
• holding that allegations of fraud must “set forth with particularity the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ of the alleged fraud” in order to comply with Rule 9(b) (quoting United States ex. rel Walsh v. Eastman Kodak Co., 98 F.Supp.2d 141, 147 (D. Mass. 2000)
• holding, in another case concerning Actos, that “aggregate expenditure data ... with no effort to identify specific entities who submitted claims or government program payers, much less times, amounts, and circumstances” falls short of Rule 9(b)’s requirements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).