Eleventh Circuit Reverses Qui Tam Dismissal, Holds Facts Obtained in Discovery Can Be Used to Satisfy Rule 9(b)
The FCA’s qui tam provisions are intended to incentivize individuals who have legitimate information about fraud on the government that would otherwise go undetected to bring those issues forward. Increasingly, “whistleblowers” – including entities established for the sole purpose of seeking qui tam bounties – are filing lawsuits with sweeping but vague allegations and seeking to fill the gaps through discovery. Unfortunately, the Eleventh Circuit recently enabled this conduct in United States ex rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc., No. 22-13340 (11th Cir. July 25, 2025). There, the court reversed a dismissal of a qui tam complaint and held that relators can leverage discovery-based allegations to overcome Rule 9(b).
Eleventh Circuit Condemns “Shotgun Pleadings” in Florida FCA Suit
The Eleventh Circuit once again put effect to Rule 9(b), insisting on clarity and specificity in False Claims Act pleadings for them to survive. In Vargas v. Lincare, Inc., 24-11080, 2025 WL 1122196 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit reiterated the importance of pleading facts “showing that a false claim was actually submitted to the government” instead of merely “sketch[ing] out a theory.” In addition, the panel opinion’s author—the long-serving Judge Tjoflat—offered a concurrence condemning “shotgun pleadings” that “lump[] multiple claims together in one count,” imploring district courts to sua sponte strike such complaints “at the outset.”
Supreme Court Declines to Address Application of 9(b) to the FCA
Yesterday the Supreme Court denied cert in a trio of cases seeking clarification as to the pleading standard required in FCA cases under Rule 9(b). The petitioners urged the Court to remedy what they characterized as a circuit split over how much detail whistleblowers and the government must supply about alleged false claims in order to survive a motion to dismiss. As discussed further here, the Solicitor General opposed these cert petitions and argued that the circuits have “largely converged” in their application of Rule 9(b) to FCA complaints.
