Whether the number of FCA civil penalties is based upon the number of overpayments received by a Section 8 landlord or whether they are based upon the number of times the landlord presents a fraudulent claim or statement to the government

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This case involves civil penalties and damages arising under Section 8 housing and the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Petitioner was the landlord, Respondents the tenants. Petitioner represented herself pro se in the District Court. Her native language is Mandarin Chinese, and she is not very proficient in the English language. Therefore, she relied upon Google translate. Petitioner did have counsel for her appeal to the Ninth Circuit. At all times, Respondents have been represented by pro bono counsel. The District Court expressly found no bad faith on the part of Petitioner. Nevertheless, the District Court determined that Petitioner’s agent made a fraudulent statement in the Section 8 housing contract it signed. Under the contract, Petitioner received automatic payments from the government without further demand, request, or further representation. Contrary to the terms of that contract, and the representations made by Petitioner’s counsel, Respondent was overpaid $300 in rent each month for 22 months, for a total of $6,600 in overpayments. The District Court rendered judgment against Petitioner for nearly $177,316, which included civil penalties and treble damages. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. ‘ In upholding the judgment, the Ninth Circuit applied a “promissory fraud” or theory in calculating the number of FCA civil penalties. Under this approach, it determined that each time rent was overpaid, Petitioner was subject to a civil penalty. Thus, it upheld the District Court’s imposition of 22 civil penalties of $5,500 each. This came to a total of $121,000 in civil penalties. With respect to treble damages, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s methodology, which was not simply three times the overpayments of $6,600. Rather, the District i : > Court trebled the total amount paid out by the government. The government paid out a total of $18,772. Thus, the District Court awarded $56,316 in treble damages. ° With respect to the both the civil penalties and the treble damages, the District Court failed to determine whether they ran afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit did not decide that issue, but it did determine the penalties and damages did not constitute excessive fines. Petitioner is now seeking a writ of certiorari from this Court. The questions presented for review here are as follows: 1. Whether the number of FCA civil penalties is based upon the number of overpayments received by a Section 8 landlord or whether they are based upon the number of times the landlord presents a fraudulent claim or statement to the government; 2. Whether FCA treble damages are based upon the total amount paid out by the government or whether they are based upon the sum of the overpayments alone; and 3. Whether due process is violated when a court imposes FCA civil penalties and treble damages that come to nearly 27 times the total amount of overpayments. \ iii LIST OF ALL PARTIES > Petitioner JING SHU ZHENG (“Zheng”) is an individual. She was the Defendant in the case brought against her in the United States District Court of the District of Nevada. She was the Appellant before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. CHRISTINA ELLIS and JONATHAN ELLIS (collectively the “Ellises”) are individuals. As Plaintiffs in the District Court, they filed suit against Zheng. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA declined to intervene. Thereafter, the District Court allowed the case to proceed with the Ellises as Relators.