[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1263
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. RONALD A. LEBLANC,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
RAYTHEON COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,
and Lisi*, District Judge.
Robert D. City, with whom Philip di Domenico and City,
Hayes, Meagher & Dissette, P.C. were on brief, for appellant.
Martin J. Newhouse, with whom Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and
Ropes & Gray were on brief, for appellee.
August 9, 1995
*Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
SELYA, Circuit Judge. This appeal stems from a so-
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
called qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. 3730 (1988). The defendant moved, early on, to dismiss
for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). The court below granted the motion, writing a careful,
well-reasoned opinion that correctly analyzed and applied the
relevant doctrines. See United States ex rel. LeBlanc v.
Raytheon Co., 874 F. Supp. 35 (D. Mass. 1995).
It is our preferred practice that when, as now, "a
trial court has produced a first-rate work product, a reviewing
tribunal should hesitate to wax longiloquent simply to hear its
own words resonate." In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire
Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). That wise adage is
fully applicable here. Accordingly, we affirm the order of
dismissal for substantially the reasons elucidated in the opinion
below.
We need go no further. The judgment of the district
court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
Affirmed.
Affirmed.
2