US ex rel. Mike Ahumada v. NISH

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 properly dismissed a proposed amended complaint as futile where the proposed amendments would not have cured a jurisdictional defect
• holding that a party must plead the “who, what, when, where, and how” of alleged fraud to meet Rule 9(b) standard
• relator did not have direct knowledge and was thus not an original source where the relator was told the information from a third party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).