United States ex rel Mateski v. Raytheon, No. 13-55341 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729–3733, alleging fraud in the performance of a Government contract. The district court dismissed the suit. The court agreed with plaintiff that the district court erred in holding that the complaint was based upon prior public disclosures and was thus precluded by the public disclosure bar of the FCA. In this case, the complaint alleges fraud that is different in kind and degree from the previously disclosed information about Raytheon’s problems in performing on the contract at issue. As such, if his allegations prove to be true, plaintiff will undoubtedly have been one of those whistle-blowing insiders with genuinely valuable information, rather than an opportunistic plaintiff who has no significant information to contribute. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: False Claims Act. Reversing the district court’s dismissal of Mateski’s qui tam complaint against Raytheon Co. and remanding to the district court for further proceedings, the panel held that the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act did not bar Mateski’s lawsuit. The panel concluded that Mateski’s allegations were not “substantially similar” to the prior publicly disclosed reports when viewed at the appropriate level of generality. Mateski’s complaint alleged fraud that was different in kind and degree from previously disclosed information about Raytheon’s problems in performing on the contract at issue. The panel held that because, if his allegations prove to be true, Mateski is a relator who will have provided the government with genuinely new and material information about fraud, he should be allowed to move forward with his qui tam suit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.