United States v. ALCAN ELECTRICAL AND ENGINEERING, 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 relator’s information was independent because it was acquired before he filed the complaint which constituted the public disclosure
• holding that “public disclosure” occurs when a disclosure “contain[s] enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation”
• holding that a relator bears the burden of establishing subject matter 3 jurisdiction, including whether he is an “original source” under the statute
• holding 24 relator failed to satisfy his burden in proving original source status, explaining that that 25 relator did “not allege that he played any role in submitting false claims to the 26 government”
• rejecting argument that “status as a member of the union” 17 sufficed to show direct knowledge
• approving a district court’s conclusion that relator did not have direct knowledge under the FCA “because his investigation merely added a legal name to describe the alleged circle of facts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).