New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

$1.5 Million § 1927 / Inherent Power Sanction Reversed — Claim Not Frivolous If Court of Appeals Previously Remanded to Allow Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint — No Evidence of Improper Purpose to Extract Settlement (Why Else Do People Sue?)

Download PDF

U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Corinthian Colleges, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10455 (9th Cir. June 9, 2016):

In case number 13-55700, Nyoka Lee and Talala Mshuja ("Relators") appeal the district court's dismissal of their amended complaint alleging violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA") by Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("Corinthian"), its former officers David Moore and Jack D. Massimino, and Ernst & Young, LLP ("EY") (collectively, "Defendants"). In case number 13-56121, Relators' attorney Scott D. Levy and his law firm appeal the district court's imposition of sanctions in the amount of Defendants' attorney's fees. We previously consolidated the cases for purposes of appeal. We affirm the district court's dismissal in no. 13-55700, but reverse the award of sanctions in no. 13-56121.

1. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Relators' action because [*3]  of the FCA's public disclosure bar. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (2010). Relators alleged in their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") that Corinthian had falsely certified its compliance with the Higher Education Act while making unlawful incentive payments to recruiters. See 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(20). But a class action securities lawsuit filed in 2005 had previously made a substantially similar allegation of fraud against Corinthian. Once the allegations against Corinthian were public, the government had ready access to documents identifying EY as Corinthian's auditor, so the allegations against EY were also subject to the public disclosure bar. See United States ex rel. Harshman v. Alcan Elec. & Eng'g, Inc., 197 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, Relators were not an "original source" of the information in their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") because they had no direct knowledge of whether Corinthian's decisions on compensation and raises were based solely on enrollment numbers. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B) (2010). The Relators' possession of reports comparing the "lead-to-conversion" ratios of each recruiter did not make them an original source.

Because Relators' allegations were previously publicly disclosed and they were not an "original source" of the information underlying their allegations, the district court correctly dismissed [*4]  the case for lack of jurisdiction. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). Accordingly, we need not reach Relators' argument that the district court erroneously found some of their claims barred by the statute of limitations.

2. Relators' arguments contesting the district court's evidentiary and discovery rulings are also without merit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking an affidavit submitted by Lee after her deposition as a "sham affidavit" because it clearly contradicted her testimony. See Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2012). Relators cannot show that any of the district court's other discovery rulings should be overturned, because they have not identified any evidence they would have sought or presented that would have a "reasonable probability" of changing the outcome in this case. See Laub v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).

3. Although the district court was correct to dismiss the case, it abused its discretion in imposing nearly $1.5 million in sanctions against Levy and his law firm. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, a district court may sanction an attorney for "multipl[ying] the proceedings . . . unreasonably and vexatiously," including recklessly filing frivolous suits. 28 U.S.C. § 1927; B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002). Relators' case was not frivolous. In their first appeal to this court, we specifically held that Relators could amend their [*5]  complaint to state a claim against Defendants, and we remanded to allow them to do so. See United States ex rel. Lee v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 996-97, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2011). Upon amendment, Relators made a plausible argument that newly alleged information regarding "lead-to-conversion" ratios was material and not based on prior public disclosures. Though this argument was ultimately unconvincing, it was not frivolous. See United States ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Co., 816 F.3d 565, 579 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that suits alleging "genuinely new and material information of fraud" can surmount the public disclosure bar). Further, the district court's finding that several of Levy's motions and filings were "vexatious" was without support in the record; there is nothing to suggest that Levy acted with intent to increase expenses or delay. See New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989).

4. The district court also issued sanctions under its inherent powers because Levy pursued the litigation for the "improper purpose" of extracting settlement. But the district court cited no evidence that Levy had any improper purpose, and the record reveals none. Because there is no support for the conclusion that Levy acted in "bad faith," this ground for sanctions also fails. See Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 1244 (9th Cir. 2016).

* * *

For the reasons explained above, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Relators' FAC in no. 13-55700, but we REVERSE [*6]  its order of sanctions against Levy and his firm in no. 13-56121. We address Relators' motion to unseal in a separate order. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in 13-55700, REVERSED in 13-56121.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice