Whether the False Claims Act requires a qui tam relator to plead with particularity the actual submission of false claims at the pleading stage, beyond the factual details of an underlying fraudulent scheme

No question identified. : The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Copies of the Eleventh Circuit’s precedential opinion and subsequent denial of rehearing are included with this application. App. A at 1a and 19a. The following grounds support this application: BACKGROUND 1. This is a False Claims Act (“FCA”) case filed by Petitioner 84Partners, LLC alleging the submission of false claims to the United States in connection with the United States’ purchase of Virginia-class nuclear submarines from Respondents General Dynamics Electric Boat (“GDEB”) and Huntington Ingalls Industries, Newport News Shipbuilding (“HII-NNS”). Petitioner 84Partners, LLC includes member Mickey Skobic, a welder for a GDEB and HII-NNS subcontractor — Nuflo, Inc. — who was instructed to perform nonconforming welds on piping components, raised concerns to supervisors, and had first-hand knowledge that his concerns were disregarded and the components were sold to GDEB and HII-NNS for installation on the submarine vessels. 84Partners, LLC also included member Peter Schilke (Cmdr, U.S. Navy, ret.) a mechanical engineer at GDEB who attended meetings and obtained documents acknowledging the defective manufacturing and lack of quality control standards to prevent nonconforming parts from being placed on the vessels. 2. Accordingly, Petitioner, as a qui tam relator for the United States, alleged that GDEB and HII-NNS submitted or caused to be submitted false claims to the United States when they knowingly purchased defective piping components from a subcontractor while ignoring a long line of red flags regarding manufacturing defects; installed piping components that failed to meet critical SUBSAFE standards onto submarines which they sold to the United States; billed the United States for the complete cost of the submarines with no costs withheld for those defective parts; and falsely certified compliance with the SUBSAFE manufacturing requirements. The operative complaint included the specific factual allegation, inter alia, that “[t]he Navy concludes [GD]EB invoiced and was paid by the Navy for the costs associated with Nuflo-made material under purchase orders issued by [GD]EB or its subcontractor [HII-]NNS.” 3. On Sept. 22, 2021, the district court granted GDEB and HII-NNS’ motions to dismiss; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on August 17, 2023. App. A at 1la18a. The Eleventh Circuit held that 84Partners, LLC had pled the underlying fraudulent scheme with particularity. However, and notwithstanding the factual allegation that the United States confirmed that it had been billed for and had paid for the nonconforming parts, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, concluding that 84Partners, LLC did not plead with particularity “the actual submission or payment of false claims.” App. A at 2a. Neither the district court nor the Eleventh Circuit made any reasonable inferences from the information in the operative complaint and instead required a level of specificity at the initial pleading stage beyond that which would be necessary for 84Partners to succeed at trial. 4. 84Partners, LLC filed a timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which the Eleventh Circuit denied on October 24, 2023. App. at 19a-20a. 5. This application follows. REASONS FOR GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME 6. The time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari should be extended to March 22, 2024 for several reasons. 7. The time period for the preparation for 84Partners’ petition for certiorari has been impacted by falling across the holidays, and during that same time frame, lead counsel for Applicant contracted the COVID-19 virus, necessitating temporary medical leave during the originally allotted time period. 8. Counsel for Applicant is a small firm that has competing obligations and deadlines that are concurrent with the preparation of this petition. Applicant’s counsel exclusively represents whistleblowers, and the most pressing deadlines are in