F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
SEP 7 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX
REL. JOHN A. KING, D.O.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-6158
HILLCREST HEALTH CENTER, INC.,
HARVEY DRAPKIN, D.O.; JOHN B.
HUGHES, D.O.; RICHARD J.
LANGERMAN, SR., D.O.; TOM W.
EWING, D.O.; ANTHONY L. CRUSE,
D.O.; RAYMOND DIETER, D.O.;
MONA MOTZ, D.O.; GLENN L.
SMITH, D.O.; and JOE GOLDSTEIN,
D.O.,
Defendants-Appellees.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma
(D.C. No. CIV-98-0295-W)
David J. Schenck (Weston C. Loegering, H. Esther Cochran of Hughes & Luce, Dallas,
Texas; John C. McMurry, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; John N. Goodman, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; Christopher L. Davis, Dallas, Texas, on the briefs) of Hughes & Luce, Dallas,
Texas, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Gregory M. Luce (Jesse A. Witten, Kathleen M. Laubenstein of Jones, Day, Reavis &
Pogue, Washington, D.C.; A. Scott Johnson, Mary Hanan, Nathan Lockhart of Johnson,
Hanan and Heron, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Rick L. Denker of Denker & Butler,
PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Randall K. Calvert, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; John
N. Hermes, M. Richard Mullins of McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Edward
Goldman, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Hilton H. Walters of Rife & Walters, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma; Kevin Driskill of Driskill & Jones, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with him
on the brief) of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C. for Defendants-
Appellees.
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier (David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General; Daniel G.
Webber, Jr., United States Attorney; Douglas N. Letter, Michael E. Robinson, Attorneys,
Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. with him on the
brief) Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
for Amicus Curiae.
Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and CROW,* District Judge.
CROW, District Judge.
Relator John A. King, D.O. appeals the dismissal of this qui tam action brought
under the False Claims Act (“Act”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. The qui tam provisions of
the Act permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the United States those persons or
entities who allegedly have presented false or fraudulent claims to the federal
government.1 As one of its jurisdictional hurdles, the Act prohibits suits based on
*
Honorable Sam A. Crow, District Judge, United States District Court for the
District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
1
Under the Act, a successful relator shares in the recovery whether or not the
government intervenes. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1).
-2-
publicly disclosed information unless the relator or person suing is an “original source” of
the information. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). The principal issue presented is whether the
relator Dr. King qualifies as an “original source” under § 3730(e)(4)(B). Agreeing with
the district court’s determination that the plaintiff cannot show he meets the requirements
for an original source, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing this action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
As part of his residency training program at Oklahoma State University College of
Osteopathic Medicine, Dr. King was employed as a resident physician in orthopedic
surgery at the defendant Hillcrest Health Center, Inc. (“Hillcrest”) from May of 1993 until
his termination in March of 1995. In March of 1997, Dr. King filed a federal action, King
v. Hillcrest Health Center, et al., No. 97-0401-T (“King I”), asserting claims for relief
under federal civil rights statutes and state law. He alleged in part that he was terminated
in retaliation for reporting that the defendants were committing Medicare and/or
Medicaid fraud. The parties to King I settled that suit in January 1999, and it was
dismissed with prejudice in February of 1999.
While King I was pending, Dr. King filed this qui tam action under seal on
February 27, 1998, alleging that the defendants had conspired to submit and had
submitted false or fraudulent claims for medical services and procedures billed under
Medicare and/or Medicaid. The United States declined to intervene, and the district court
-3-
in June of 1999 ordered the complaint unsealed and served. The defendants moved to
dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint arguing, inter alia: (1) that the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because King I constituted a public disclosure of
information and Dr. King did not qualify as an “original source” of the information, and
(2) that the dismissal with prejudice of King I bars this action under the doctrine of res
judicata. Besides opposing the defendants’ motions, the plaintiff moved for leave to file
a second amended complaint.
A. District Court’s Order Dismissing on Res Judicata Grounds
Considering first the challenge to its subject matter jurisdiction, the district court
found the proposed second amended complaint to have sufficiently alleged that Dr. King
had direct and independent knowledge of the defendants’ fraudulent schemes and had
gained this knowledge from his own efforts and personal observations. A plaintiff
claiming to be an “original source” also must allege that he voluntarily provided the
relevant information to the federal government prior to filing the qui tam suit. With
respect to this pleading requirement, the district court concluded:
Because the defendants have not contested King’s allegation that he did
voluntarily provide the information prior to filing this lawsuit, the Court finds for
purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) that King has sufficiently alleged that he is an “original
source” of the information and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
his claims.
(II Aplt. App. at 324). Turning away the subject matter jurisdiction challenge, the district
court granted the motions to dismiss on res judicata grounds finding an identity of causes
-4-
of action in King I and the qui tam suit. The district court also denied Dr. King’s motion
to amend on futility grounds.
B. First Rule 59(e) Motion and Amicus Curiae Brief
Dr. King filed a Rule 59(e) motion asking the court to reconsider its res judicata
analysis. In response, the United States of America (“United States”) filed an amicus
curiae brief concurring with the relator’s position on the res judicata issue and notifying
the district court “that it has no record of the relator providing any information to the
government on which the allegations in the qui tam are based at any time prior to
February 27, 1998, the date the complaint was filed.” (II Aplt. App. at 365-66). The
district court promptly followed up with a brief order saying it had “reviewed” the United
States’ amicus curiae brief and giving the parties an additional eight days “to file
responses, if they so choose, to the arguments, authorities and statements contained
therein.” (II Aplt. App. at 369).
In the additional time provided by the district court, the defendants filed their
response on February 22, 2000, and Dr. King filed none. The defendants addressed not
only the res judicata arguments but the government’s statement that Dr. King had not
provided it with information before filing the qui tam complaint. The defendants pointed
out that the district court had been misled by the allegation in Dr. King’s proposed second
amended complaint that he had provided the government with a statement of all material
evidence and information when he filed his original qui tam complaint. While the district
-5-
court had characterized and denied their prior “facial attack” on subject matter
jurisdiction, the defendants maintained the government’s filing suggested facts showing
the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants called on the court to consider the
government’s brief in dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Prior to
the district court’s second dismissal order filed seven days later, Dr. King did not seek
leave to file a reply or supplemental brief.
C. District Court’s Second Dismissal Order
On February 29, 2000, the district court vacated its prior order of dismissal on res
judicata grounds and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
district court held:
The defendants contested only the timeliness of King’s disclosure of
information to the government in connection with King I. The defendants did not
contest the timeliness of the disclosure vis-a-vis the qui tam action, and the Court
found King had sufficiently alleged for purposes of the pending Motions to
Dismiss that he was an “original source” of the information, and that the Court
therefore had subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
The United States has now advised the Court and opposing counsel in its
amicus curiae brief that it has no record of King providing any information about
the allegations giving rise to this lawsuit prior to February 27, 1998, the date the
original complaint was filed. In light of the government’s clarification about
King’s actions, the Court concludes that reconsideration of its Order is necessary
to the extent the Court now finds King did not provide the information on which
the allegations in the qui tam action are based prior to filing the FCA action. King
therefore does not qualify as an “original source,” and, consequently, this action is
barred. E.g., Spectrum, 190 F.3d at 1157 (FCA specifically bars all qui tam
actions based on publicly disclosed information unless person bringing action was
“original source” of information).
(II Aplt. App. at 387-88). Relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the district court based its
-6-
jurisdictional ruling on the suggested facts stated in the government’s amicus curiae brief
rather than the allegation appearing in Dr. King’s proposed second amended complaint or
the statement in Dr. King’s memorandum of law filed on November 4, 1999, that he had
“provided detailed information organized in notebooks to the U.S. Attorney in Oklahoma
City and to the Department of Justice prior to filing this action.” (II Aplt. App. at 387).
D. Dr. King’s Second Rule 59(e) Motion
In his second Rule 59(e) motion, Dr. King argued he had satisfied the voluntary
disclosure element of the “original source” definition and attached an affidavit from his
attorney Weston Loegering outlining their efforts to make this pre-filing disclosure.
Specifically, Mr. Loegering averred that he met with three assistant United States
attorneys in November of 1997, shared some information and allegations from his client,
and offered to make his client available for an interview. Following up on questions
asked of him during that meeting, Mr. Loegering provided additional information by
telephone calls and voice-mail to the assistant United States attorneys.
The government filed a response with supporting affidavits acknowledging that a
meeting with Mr. Loegering did take place in November of 1997 but with only general
information disclosed and the names withheld. According to the government’s attorneys,
Mr. Loegering provided information of several schemes but withheld the names of his
client and of the potential defendants, and he claimed to have documentation and a draft
complaint but submitted neither to them. In her affidavit, Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan
-7-
Dickerson Cox averred that she had attended this meeting in November of 1997 but that
Mr. Loegering established a framework to keep the meeting “general in nature, on a no-
name basis” with “an actual proffer” to be furnished later. (II Aplt. App. at 424). The
affidavit highlighted that Mr. Loegering never disclosed “the identity or name of any of
the people or entities involved.” Id. “Neither the identity of the Relator, nor that of the
defendants, nor a proffer, nor documentation of any scheme, nor a draft Complaint was
provided to this Affiant prior to filing the Complaint.” Id. The relator filed a reply brief
that did not address the government’s response or the affidavit of Cox.
The district court observed that in his second Rule 59 motion Dr. King had
“challenged the government’s allegations regarding the timeliness and extent of his
disclosure.” (II Aplt. App. at 461). Referring to “the record in its entirety,” the district
court summarily denied Dr. King’s motion as requesting relief “not warranted.” Id.
The relator appeals arguing: (1) that a public disclosure did not occur and that the
district court erred in apparently assuming a public disclosure had occurred; (2) that he
fulfilled the letter and intent of the voluntary, pre-filing disclosure requirement of §
3730(e)(4)(B); and (3) that the district court failed to follow proper summary judgment
procedure.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo, applying the
same standard used by the district court. Sac & Fox Nation of Okla. v. Cuomo, 193 F.3d
-8-
1162, 1165 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1229 (2000). Jurisdictional
challenges based on the public disclosure bar “arise out of the same statute creating the
cause of action (i.e., the False Claims Act) and are thus necessarily intertwined with the
merits of the case.” United States ex rel. Hafter v. Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., 190
F.3d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1999). Consequently, the court should resolve this issue under
either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
When it denied initially the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge, the district court
relied on Rule 12(b)(6) judging only the sufficiency of Dr. King’s allegations that the
defendants had attacked facially but not factually. When it later sustained the defendants’
jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(h)(3), the district court relied on facts suggested in
the government’s amicus curiae brief and eventually considered affidavits submitted by
the government and the relator. Applying the legal standards of Rule 56, the court will
review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
United States ex rel. Fine v. MK-Ferguson Co., 99 F.3d 1538, 1543 (10th Cir. 1996).
Having limited jurisdiction, federal courts do not presume jurisdiction to exist but
require an adequate showing of jurisdiction from the party invoking it. Hafter, 190 F.3d
at 1160. Upon a jurisdictional challenge, that party bears the burden of alleging the facts
critical to jurisdiction and coming forth with competent proof. Id. The premise of limited
jurisdiction also means the Act “should not be read in a manner that impermissibly
expands federal jurisdiction.” MK-Ferguson, 99 F.3d at 1544 (citation omitted).
-9-
III. DISCUSSION
The Act denies a court of jurisdiction over a qui tam action “based upon the public
disclosure of allegations or transactions in a . . . civil, . . . hearing, . . ., unless. . . the
person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” 31 U.S.C. §
3730(e)(4)(A). The Act defines “original source” to mean “an individual who has direct
and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has
voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this
section which is based on the information.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B). “The FCA’s
jurisdictional scheme seeks ‘the golden mean between adequate incentives for whistle-
blowing insiders with genuinely valuable information and discouragement of
opportunistic plaintiffs who have no significant information to contribute of their own.’”
United States ex rel. Fine v. Sandia Corp., 70 F.3d 568, 571 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting
United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 649 (D.C. Cir.
1994)); see United States v. Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 1999).
At the summary judgment stage, this public disclosure bar to jurisdiction entails
four questions:
(1) whether the alleged “public disclosure” contains allegations or transactions
from one of the listed sources; (2) whether the alleged disclosure has been made
“public” within the meaning of the False Claims Act; (3) whether the relator’s
complaint is “based upon” this public disclosure; and, if so, (4) whether the relator
qualifies as an “original source.”
Hafter, 190 F.3d at 1161 (quoting MK-Ferguson Co., 99 F.3d at 1544 (10th Cir. 1996)).
-10-
A court’s decision should begin with the first three issues governing public disclosure, as
the “‘original source’ issue is necessary only if the court answers the first three questions
in the affirmative.” Id.
A. Public Disclosure
On appeal, Dr. King contests whether King I is a public disclosure and whether the
qui tam action is based upon the public disclosure. Before the district court, Dr. King
essentially conceded both issues when he jumped past these issues and argued only that
he qualified as an original source in opposing the defendants’ original motions to
dismiss.2 For that matter, Dr. King waited until his reply brief in support of his second
Rule 59 motion to complain of the district court’s failure to make an express finding that
King I was a public disclosure. Grounds or arguments in support of subject matter
jurisdiction may be waived like any other contention. Franklin Savings Corp. v. United
States, 180 F.3d 1124, 1129 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 964 (1999). Even
assuming that one or all of these issues had been timely raised before the district court,
Dr. King still faces the holding in United States ex rel. Precision Co. v. Koch Industries,
Inc., 971 F.2d 548, 552-54 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 951 (1993), that a qui
2
The relator did cite in a footnote several federal district court opinions from
jurisdictions outside the Tenth Circuit as holding that the public disclosure bar did not
apply to information disclosed in prior litigation. (II Aplt. App. at 246). The relator,
however, ended his footnote with a citation of But see United States ex rel. Precision Co.
v. Koch Industries, Inc., 971 F.2d 548, 553-54 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S.
951 (1993). Other than citing these cases, the relator made no effort to distinguish the
Precision decision or to argue that it was not controlling here.
-11-
tam action is based on a public disclosure when its allegations share a substantial identity
with the allegations in prior litigation. Absent an en banc rehearing, we are bound to
follow Precision here. Eberl’s Claim Service, Inc. v. C.I.R., 249 F.3d 994, 1003 (10th
Cir. 2001); United States v. Meyers, 200 F.3d 715, 720 (10th Cir. 2000) (“The precedent
of prior panels which this court must follow includes not only the very narrow holdings of
those prior cases, but also the reasoning underlying those holdings, particularly when such
reasoning articulates a point of law”). Being no dispute that a substantial identity exists,
King I is a public disclosure under § 3730(e)(4)(A) that bars jurisdiction of the qui tam
action unless Dr. King qualifies as an original source.
B. Original Source
Dr. King contends he satisfied the requirements for being an original source. Not
only did he have direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the
allegations are based, but his attorney met and discussed those allegations with assistant
United States attorneys before ever filing the qui tam suit. Dr. King insists the voluntary
pre-filing disclosure by his attorney, though conducted on a no-name basis, should be
held sufficient in that it conveyed the substance of his fraud allegations.
The two jurisdictional elements in the “original source” exception at §
3730(e)(4)(B) are:
First, the qui tam relator must have “direct and independent knowledge of the
information on which the allegations are based.” Precision, 971 F.3d at 553.
Second, the qui tam relator must have “voluntarily provided” the information to
the government prior to filing suit. Id.
-12-
MK-Ferguson, 99 F.3d at 1547. In other words, the relator must not only be the “source,”
that is, one who voluntarily provides the information to the government before filing an
action, but the relator must also be the “original source,” that is, one who has direct and
independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based. United
States v. Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d at 865. To avoid the jurisdictional bar created by
“public disclosure,” a relator must have direct and independent knowledge of the
information on which the qui tam allegations are based and must have provided the same
information to the government prior to filing the qui tam action. It is the “source”
element that is the focus of this appeal.
The statute does not lay out and the courts have not settled on what it means to
have “voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action.” §
3730(E)(4)(B); see Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d at 865. The language of a statute is
ordinarily conclusive absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, and the
plain meaning of that language generally controls unless this results in ambiguity or
absurdity. United States ex rel. Precision Co. v. Koch Industries, Inc., 971 F.3d at 552.
“Not only are we governed by the plain language of the statute, we must also be mindful
that ‘statutes conferring jurisdiction on federal courts are to be strictly construed , and
doubts resolved against federal jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting F & S Construction Co. v.
Jensen, 337 F.2d 160, 161 (10th Cir. 1964)).
Subparagraph (B) is a single sentence. It refers to “information” as that “on which
-13-
the allegations are based.” Specifically, “[t]he ‘information on which the allegations are
based’ means the information underlying or supporting the fraud allegations contained in
the plaintiff’s qui tam complaint.” Hafter, 190 F.3d at 1162 (citation omitted). “The
word ‘information’ refers to any essential element of the fraud transaction (e.g., Y).’”
United States ex rel. Findley v. FPC-Boron Employees’ Club, 105 F.3d 675, 690 (D.C.
Cir.) (quoting Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1994)),
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 865 (1997); see also Sandia Corp., 70 F.3d at 572. Thus, before
filing the qui tam action, a relator must voluntarily provide the Government with the
essential elements or information on which the qui tam allegations are based.
It is also clear from the statutes that compliance with the disclosure requirements
of § 3730(b)(2) at the time of filing does not satisfy the pre-filing disclosure requirement
of § 3730(e)(4). Farmington , 166 F.3d at 866; Findley, 105 F.3d at 690. “More must be
done to qualify as an original source than to file the action. The government must be
voluntarily notified beforehand.” Farmington, 166 F.3d at 866 (citation omitted). The
pre-filing voluntary disclosure requirement encourages private individuals to come
forward with their information of fraud “at the earliest possible time and . . .
discourage[s] persons with relevant information from remaining silent.” Farmington, 166
F.3d at 866 (quotation and citations omitted). Besides giving the government more time
than the post-filing period to act on the fraud allegations, this requirement also gives the
government the chance “to consider whether there has already been public disclosure of
-14-
the matters, whether the prospective relator in fact possesses direct and independent
knowledge of the matters he is disclosing, and whether he is making disclosure on a
voluntary basis.” United States ex rel. Ackley v. Intern. Business Machines, 76 F. Supp.
2d 654, 668 (D. Md. 1999).
The narrow question raised on appeal is whether a relator qualifies as a “source” if
in making his pre-filing disclosure he withholds his identity and the identities of the
potential defendants. The identities of the accuser and the accused are information, i.e.
essential elements of the fraud transaction, on which the qui tam allegations are based.
As for the information about the fraudulent schemes that was disclosed, there is little
question that the government’s ability to analyze and assess it was hampered, if not
blocked, by this omission of identities. To withhold the identities of the relator and
perpetrator deprives the government of key facts necessary in its efforts to confirm,
substantiate or evaluate the fraud allegations. Without the identities, the information
behind the allegations essentially remains in the relator’s possession and undisclosed to
the government, and what has been disclosed could be said to be little more than a
hypothetical account given by an attorney.
That the relator’s attorney offered to make his client available for an interview or
that the government could have discovered the defrauding entities upon investigation
must be rejected as efforts to dilute the very jurisdictional requirements set by Congress.
Section 3730(e)(4) requires an individual to provide voluntarily the information to the
-15-
government before filing the qui tam action. Plainly, the statute imposes the
responsibility on the relator to meet these requirements in order to qualify as an “original
source” and, other than the implied obligation of being available to accept such
disclosures, places no additional investigative duties on the government to assist a relator
in meeting this jurisdictional requirement. Applying these jurisdictional requirements in
this manner encourages private individuals to come forward quickly with their
information, to not dawdle when there has been a public disclosure, and to discourage
persons from withholding or remaining silent about their relevant information. See
Farmington, 166 F.3d at 866. In sum, the relator’s decision to withhold from his
voluntary disclosure to the government, his identity and that of the potential defendants,
kept him from meeting the jurisdictional requirements of an original source.3
C. Summary Judgment Procedure
Though acknowledging that a court may dismiss sua sponte for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“[w]henever it appears by suggestion of
3
Citing decisions from the Sixth and D.C. Circuits, the appellees ask the court to
read § 3730(e)(4)(B) as requiring a relator to make the voluntary disclosure to the
government not just “before filing” the qui tam action but before the public disclosure.
The Tenth Circuit has discussed the voluntary disclosure element as something to be
accomplished “prior to filing suit.” See, e.g., United States ex rel. Fine v. MK-Ferguson
Co., 99 F.3d 1538, 1547 (10th Cir. 1996); United States ex rel. Fine v. Advanced
Sciences, Inc., 99 F.3d 1000, 1006 (10th Cir. 1996). Having concluded that Dr. King
failed to make an adequate voluntary disclosure prior to filing suit, the court need not
consider this issue regarding the timing of the disclosure. For the same reason, the court
will not tackle the appellees’ alternative arguments for affirming the district court’s
judgment.
-16-
the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court
shall dismiss the action”), Dr. King relies on notions of “fairness and common sense” in
arguing he was denied effective notice of the voluntary pre-filing disclosure issue and the
timely opportunity to present evidence on the same. As the appellees point out, a district
court is vested with discretion to set procedures for determining subject matter
jurisdiction. United States ex rel. Precision Co. v. Koch Industries, Inc., 971 F.2d at 551
n. 1 (“Because there is no statutory direction for procedure upon an issue of jurisdiction,
the mode of its determination is left to the trial court.” (quotation omitted)). Relying on
the post-judgment “suggestion” in the amicus curiae brief that subject matter jurisdiction
may be lacking, the district court invited responses from the relator and the defendants.
This court agrees that the district court’s invitation certainly could have been more
specific about the issues to be briefed. For that matter, the district court should have set
out a procedure for briefing this issue and submitting evidence on the same.
The district court’s failure to set and follow a procedure, however, did not
prejudice Dr. King so as to require reversal. Because the defendants had earlier
challenged the court’s jurisdiction due to public disclosure, Dr. King “had an opportunity
to sufficiently plead their original source status” in the proposed second amended
complaint and attach the proof necessary to support those allegations. Hafter, 190 F.3d at
1160 n. 5. The district court then gave Dr. King the additional opportunity to respond to
the government’s brief that included this Rule 12(h)(3) suggestion. More importantly,
-17-
because he undisputedly withheld identities from his voluntary disclosure, Dr. King is
unable to argue that the lack of notice and opportunity to present evidence precluded him
from proving that the requirements for an original source were satisfied. Thus, even
assuming the district court did err in not setting and following established procedures and
in not granting the Rule 59(e) motion and conducting an evidentiary hearing, Dr. King’s
attorney’s affidavit would not sustain a finding that the relator had made an adequate pre-
filing disclosure.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, we conclude that King I was a public disclosure under § 3730(e)(4)(A) and
that Dr. King is unable to prove he made the voluntary pre-filing disclosure required
under § 3730(e)(4)(B). The district court’s order dismissing this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction is affirmed.
-18-