United States ex rel. Fallon v. Accudyne Corp.
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
880 F. Supp. 636 (1995)
- Written by Oni Harton, JD
Facts
Accudyne Corp. (Accudyne) (defendant) signed numerous contracts with the United States Department of Defense. The contracts required Accudyne to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. When bidding for the contracts, Accudyne falsely stated that its price submitted included all costs associated with environmental compliance. Accudyne knowingly presented false representations, certifications, and claims that it complied with the contractually incorporated environmental regulations. After the contract award, Accudyne knowingly failed to comply with environmental requirements while performing under the contract. The Department of Defense relied on false representations to pay the contract claim. United States ex rel. Fallon (relators) (plaintiff) brought an action on behalf of the United States, alleging that the defendants knowingly made false claims when it contracted to comply with environmental regulations and received contract payments when it falsely certified that it had complied with the environmental requirements. Relators alleged violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (FCA). Accudyne Corp. (Accudyne) (defendant) moved to dismiss one of the relators’ claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shabaz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.