United States Ex Rel. Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the knowledge evinced in a qui tam relator’s fraud complaint supported a plausible inference of fraud in that case
• noting that it was “possible that military procurement officers accepted and paid for the turbine blades without this certificate” but that the possibility was “remote”
• holding that the relator had satisfied Rule 9(b) on his section 3729(a)(1
• holding that a qui tam plaintiff in an FCA case did not need specific documents to meet Rule 9(b)’s standard; rather, it is sufficient to “show, in detail, the nature of the charge” because “knowledge is inferential”
• finding that because “much knowledge is inferential,” relator need not produce invoices at outset of litigation
• explaining that it is not “essential for a relator to produce the invoices (and accompanying representations) at the outset of the suit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).