United States of America, Exrel., Insoon Lee v. Smithkline Beecham, Inc. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories Does 1-100

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that FCA complaints must comply with Rule 9(b) requirements mandating that allegations of fraud be pleaded with particularity
• concluding that an FCA claim lacked the requisite particularity under Rule 9(b) where, inter alia, plaintiff failed to identify the employees involved in the fraud
• holding that Plaintiff failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity but stating that party may be entitled to lenient application of Rule 9(b) where information is in possession of corporate defendant
• holding that “[i]n an appropriate case, knowingly billing for worthless services” may be actionable
• holding that Rule 9 9(b) was not satisfied when plaintiffs did not “identify the [defendant’s] employees who 10 performed the tests, or provide any dates, times, or places the tests were conducted
• holding that Rule 9 9(b) was not satisfied when plaintiffs did not “identify the [defendant’s] employees who 10 performed the tests, or provide any dates, times, or places the tests were conducted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).