United States v. Cooke Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-05743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. Cooke Inc., Judge Furman granted defendants’ dismissal motions, denied amendment, and closed the case.
The relators’ amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety; the defendants received judgment in their favor, and the case was closed. The relators’ request to amend again was denied.
What happened
In United States v. Cooke Inc., the defendants asked the court to dismiss the relators’ amended complaint. The judgment states that the court had previously allowed an amendment and warned that the relators would not receive another opportunity to amend.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The relators then sought permission to add a claim under a different provision of the False Claims Act, arguing that a later appeals-court decision had changed the law concerning reverse false claims.
Judge Furman denied the request to amend. The court stated that the proposed claim would fail for the same reason as the existing claims: the alleged conduct did not involve “property or money” covered by the False Claims Act. Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the case was closed.
The detailed version
- United States v. Cooke Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05743
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 3, 2025
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s January 3, 2025 Opinion and Order, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. The relators’ amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
Request to Amend
The remaining issue was whether the relators could amend the complaint again. They sought permission to add a claim under Section 3729(a)(1)(D) of the False Claims Act, which concerns a person who has possession, custody, or control of government-related money or property and knowingly delivers, or causes delivery of, less than all of it.
The court denied that request. It stated that the relators had not explained how a Second Circuit decision addressing the False Claims Act’s reverse-false-claims provision supported adding a claim under a different provision. The court also relied on its earlier grant of leave to amend and its prior warning that the relators would not receive another opportunity to do so.
The court further stated that amendment would be futile because any Section 3729(a)(1)(D) claim would fail for the same reason as the claims under Sections 3729(a)(1)(A) and 3729(a)(1)(B): the absence of “property or money” within the meaning of the False Claims Act.
Disposition
Judgment was entered in the defendants’ favor, and the case was closed. The excerpt does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.