Whether the complaint provided sufficient notice of the alleged false claims against Raytheon under Rule 9(b), and whether the alleged false claims were material to the government's decision to pay Raytheon

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This is an action brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”), by Petitioner Steven Mateski (“Petitioner”) against Respondent Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) to recover money paid by the Government to Raytheon based upon false claims submitted by Raytheon in connection with the design and building of the VIIRS sensor used for the collection of data in orbiting weather and defense satellites. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a four-page Memorandum summarily affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the case on the grounds that the Fifth Amended Complaint (“Complaint” herein) did not meet the specificity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 9(b) and, therefore, it could not be determined whether Raytheon’s non-compliance with the VIIRS subcontract was material to the Government. This was error. The Complaint alleged three types of false claims: (a) factually false claims; and (b) expressly and impliedly false certified claims that it had performed all the material terms of the VIIRS subcontract without disclosing its failure to do so. As admitted by the Government, the claims were material because they “‘went to the very essence of the bargain” between Raytheon and the Government. Two questions are presented: 1. Did the Complaint give Raytheon sufficient notice of the particular misconduct alleged to constitute fraud, so that it was error to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 9(b)? 2. Were the false claims alleged by Petitioner material to the Government’s decision to pay Raytheon?