Cluster 4392350

green · 108 citation events across 23 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 50

green Cook v. Integrated Behavioral Health Inc (2023)

Quote Authority · N.D. Ala.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 507 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of the FCA.”).

“[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of the FCA.”

green Don Ascolese v. Shoemaker Construction Co (2022)

Quote Authority · 3rd Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Petras, 857 F.3d at 507 (“Even if Petras had sufficiently alleged [his employer had] no- tice [of his protected conduct]—an issue we do not address here. . .

“Even if Petras had sufficiently alleged [his employer had] no- tice [of his protected conduct]—an issue we do not address here. . . Petras’s reverse FCA action is not viable. Therefore, Petras’s retaliation claim fails as well.”

green United States Ex Rel. Barrick v. Parker-Migliorini International, LLC (2017)

Quote Authority · 10th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 505 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[A]n ‘established duty more likely refers to one owed at the time that the alleged improper conduct under the FCA occurred.... [T]he term does not include a duty that is dependent on a future discretionary act.”).

“[A]n ‘established duty more likely refers to one owed at the time that the alleged improper conduct under the FCA occurred.... [T]he term does not include a duty that is dependent on a future discretionary act.”

green HALL v. ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (2023)

Quote Authority · E.D. Pa.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. a specific test but have required at least some nexus between the plaintiff’s actions and an FCA violation.

“a relator’s actions still must convey a connection to the [FCA]”

green COLLADO v. BRACCO, S.P.A. (2022)

Quote Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497 , 507 n.53 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of the FCA.”) (quotations and citation omitted).

“[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of the FCA.”

green State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (2021)

Quote Authority · D. Haw.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497 , 507 & n.53 (3d Cir. 2017) (“Our explanation of why the District Court was correct in dismissing the FCA claim applies with equal force to the dismissal of [relator’s] conspiracy claim.”) (citing Pencheng Si v. Laogai Research Found., 71 F. Supp. 3d 73, 89 (D.D.C. 2014) (“[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of the FCA.”)). 11 Count Four alleges a conspiracy claim based on a superseded versi…

“Our explanation of why the District Court was correct in dismissing the FCA claim applies with equal force to the dismissal of [relator’s] conspiracy claim.”

green Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE (2019)

Quote Authority · N.D. Cal.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc. , 857 F.3d 497 , 507 (3d Cir. 2017) ("[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy *941 where there is no underlying violation of the FCA."); United States ex rel.

"[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy *941 where there is no underlying violation of the FCA."

green Bhatti v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency (2018)

Quote Authority · D. Me.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc. , 857 F.3d 497 , 502-03 (3d Cir. 2017) ("We conclude that the [Small Business Administration], when acting as a receiver under the circumstances here, *1226 was not acting as the Government."); United States v. Beszborn , 21 F.3d 62 , 68 (5th Cir. 1994) (rejecting double-jeopardy claim because earlier lawsuit was pursued by the Resolution Trust Corporation "in its private, non-governmental capacity as receiver"). 10 The Third Amendment is simply a co…

"We conclude that the [Small Business Administration], when acting as a receiver under the circumstances here, *1226 was not acting as the Government."

green Naadam Inc. v. Brian Linton (2026)

Rule Authority · D. Del.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017)).

green United States of America ex rel. Kari Crutcher v. First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation, Pacific Investment Man… (2026)

Rule Authority · D. Del.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017).

green In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation (2025)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 ).

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557

green County of Albany, New York v. Eli Lilly and Company (2025)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 ); see also Kane ex rel.

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557

green County of Albany, New York v. Eli Lilly and Company (2025)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557

green FELDMAN v. SCYNEXIS, INC (2025)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

citation omitted

green HALL v. ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (2025)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 508 (3d Cir. 2017); Dookeran vy.

green JENSEN v. GENESIS LABORATORY MANAGEMENT, LLC (2025)

Rule Authority · D.N.J. · 2 citations in this opinion

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017). “[U]nder this pleading standard, a plaintiff need not identify a specific claim for payment.” Janssen, 576 F. Supp. 3d at 223 (citing Foglia v. Renal, Ventures Mgmt., LLC, 754 F.3d 153, 156 (3d Cir. 2014)).

green HENRY v. FUTU HOLDINGS LIMITED (2024)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

citation omitted

green PATEL v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. (2024)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223– 24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 .

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223– 24 (3d Cir. 2004

green Miller v. United States, Citibank, N.A. (2024)

Rule Authority · 2d Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 505 (3d Cir. 2017).

green IN RE BIOLINERX LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION (2024)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

citation omitted

green ABC v. DEF (2024)

Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 504-05 (3rd Cir. 2017) (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (b)(3)).

quoting 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (b)(3)

green United States ex rel. Michael Angelo v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2024)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 504 (3d Cir. 2017); United States ex rel.

green In Re RenovaCare, Inc. Securities Litigation (2024)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 .

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 . The heightened pleading standard set forth in Rule 9(b

green UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MAGEE WOMENS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND FOUNDATION (2024)

Rule Authority · W.D. Pa.

This inquiry is “fact intensive.” Ms. Ruggeri engaged in protected activity on April 2, 2018, when she prepared her Assessment of Grant Compliance, shared it with her superiors, and then hand- 4 She must also show that the underlying FCA claim that she was addressing was at least “viable.” , 857 F.3d 497, 508 (3d Cir. 2017); at 508 n.56.

green THE CHOWNS GROUP, LLC v. Grimberg Co., Inc. (2024)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.

Cir. 1998)); 31 U.S.C. § 3720 (h)(1). “’[T]he whistleblower protections apply only to actions taken in furtherance of a viable False Claims Act case,’ though it need not be a ‘winning FCA case.’” Petras, 857 F.3d at 508 (internal citation omitted).

internal citation omitted

green SMITH v. IDEAL CONCEPTS, INC. (2023)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 508 (3d Cir. 2017) (holding that the plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed because the underlying FCA claim was not viable); Hall, 2023 WL 6216526 at *8 (holding that an FCA retaliation claim must “identify a nexus between the plaintiffs’ conduct and a potential FCA violation.”) Viability does not require that a claimant develop a winning FCA action.

holding that the plaintiff’s retaliation claim failed because the underlying FCA claim was not viable

green ELLSWORTH ASSOCIATES, LLP v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION (2023)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 505 (3d Cir. 2017); United States ex rel.

green UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER (2022)

Rule Authority · W.D. Pa.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 508 (3d Cir. 2017).

green Foster v. PHH Mortgage (2022)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 503 (3d Cir. 2017) (concluding that the Small Business Administration did not “necessarily qualify as the ‘Government’ for purposes of the FCA”); United States v. Wells Fargo & Co., 943 F.3d 588, 596-97 (2d Cir. 2019) (holding that Federal Reserve Bank personnel are not officers or employees of the United States within the meaning of the False Claims Act).

concluding that the Small Business Administration did not “necessarily qualify as the ‘Government’ for purposes of the FCA”

green Banks v. EIDP, Inc. (2022)

Rule Authority · D. Del.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted).

quotation omitted

green Billington v. HCL Technologies Ltd. (2022)

Rule Authority · D. Conn.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 506 (3d Cir. 2017) (“We conclude then that for a reverse FCA claim, the definition of an ‘obligation’ refers to one existing at the time of the improper conduct to pay the Government funds, the amount of which may not be fixed at the time of the improper conduct.” (footnote omitted)); United States ex rel.

“We conclude then that for a reverse FCA claim, the definition of an ‘obligation’ refers to one existing at the time of the improper conduct to pay the Government funds, the amount of which may not be fixed at the time of the improper conduct.” (footnote omitted)

green GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO. v. POMERANTZ (2022)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017).

green DILELLO v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH (2022)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017).

green SCIBETTA v. ACCLAIMED HEALTHCARE (2021)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 507 (3d Cir. 2017).

green Frey v. Health Management Systems Inc (2021)

Rule Authority · N.D. Tex.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Circ. 2017)).

green Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE (2021)

Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 507 (3d Cir. 2017) 12 (“[T]here can be no liability for conspiracy where there is no underlying violation of the FCA.”). 13 Thus, because Plaintiffs have failed to allege a reverse FCA claim under § 3729(a)(1)(G), 14 Plaintiffs also fail to state a conspiracy claim under § 3729(a)(1)(C). 15 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a FCA claim as to 16 Non-Appearing Defendants.

green United States v. NEARY (2021)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017).

green FRANCHITTI v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION (2021)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 506 (3d Cir. 2017).

green ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE (2021)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum b.

quoting Lum b. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223–24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557

green Heckman v. North Penn Comprehensive Health Services (2021)

Rule Authority · M.D. Penn.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., the Third Circuit suggested that the “distinct possibility” standard would continue to apply when it stated that the whistleblower provision applies “only to actions taken in furtherance of a viable FCA case.” 857 F.3d 497, 507-08 (3d Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original); accord.

emphasis in original

green THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. (2021)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017).

green ASCOLESE v. SHOEMAKER CONSTRUCTION CO. (2021)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 507 (3d Cir. 2017).

green GENTEX CORPORATION v. SUPERIOR MOLD COMPANY (2020)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.

It also places defendants on notice of the “precise misconduct with which they are charged.” United States ex rel Pelras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017).

green BAYDA v. HOWMET CASTINGS & SERVICES (2020)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl.

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)

green RICKMAN v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC (2020)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

internal quotation and citation omitted

green STATE OF MINNESOTA, BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH ELLISON v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC (2020)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl.

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)

green LYNEVYCH v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC (2020)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

internal quotation and citation omitted

green CHAIRES v. NOVO NORDISK INC. (2020)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl.

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)

green MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES, LLC v. SANOFI AVENTIS U.S. LLC (2020)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 . 13 III.

quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 , 223-24 (3d Cir. 2004

green Pca Integrity Associates, LLP v. Nco Financial Systems Inc (2020)

Rule Authority · D.D.C.

Petras v. Simparel, Inc., 857 F.3d 497, 505 (3d Cir. 2017) (concluding that the term “obligation” under the post-FERA FCA “does not include a duty that is dependent on a future discretionary act”).

concluding that the term “obligation” under the post-FERA FCA “does not include a duty that is dependent on a future discretionary act”