United States Sixth Circuit

District court's denial of plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint concluding that the proposed amended complaint, which included a list of contracts that the government allegedly entered into as a result of fraudulent representations on the part of Ford, did not allege with sufficient particularity the existence of a "claim" as defined by the False Claims Act (FCA), is affirmed as, because no holding of Bledsoe II affected the circuit's law on the questions at issue before the district court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that its original rationale for not permitting plaintiff to file its second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 59(e) still obtained and that permitting such a filing was not otherwise "required in order to prevent an injustice."

Appellate Information

• Argued 08/04/2010
• Decided 09/01/2010
• Published 09/01/2010

Judges

• BOGGS

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David H. Fink, Francis R. Ortiz