LeBlanc v. Raytheon Company ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                              _________________________



          No. 95-1263





                 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. RONALD A. LEBLANC,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                         v.



                               RAYTHEON COMPANY, INC.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                              _________________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                              _________________________



                                        Before



                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,
______________



                              and Lisi*, District Judge.
______________



                              _________________________





               Robert  D. City,  with  whom Philip  di  Domenico and  City,
_______________              ____________________      _____

          Hayes, Meagher & Dissette, P.C. were on brief, for appellant.
_______________________________

               Martin J.  Newhouse, with  whom Theodore  M. Hess-Mahan  and
___________________             _______________________

          Ropes & Gray were on brief, for appellee.
____________



                              _________________________



                                    August 9, 1995

                              _________________________



          ____________________

          *Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.


































SELYA, Circuit  Judge.   This appeal  stems from  a so-
SELYA, Circuit  Judge.
______________



          called  qui tam  action brought  under the  False Claims  Act, 31
___ ___



          U.S.C.   3730 (1988).  The defendant moved, early on,  to dismiss



          for want  of subject  matter jurisdiction.   See Fed. R.  Civ. P.
___



          12(b)(1).  The court below granted the motion, writing a careful,



          well-reasoned  opinion that  correctly  analyzed and  applied the



          relevant doctrines.    See  United  States  ex  rel.  LeBlanc  v.
___  _________________________________



          Raytheon Co., 874 F. Supp. 35 (D. Mass. 1995).
____________



                    It is  our preferred  practice  that when,  as now,  "a



          trial court has  produced a first-rate work  product, a reviewing



          tribunal  should hesitate to wax longiloquent  simply to hear its



          own words  resonate."   In re  San Juan Dupont  Plaza Hotel  Fire
_________________________________________



          Litig., 989  F.2d 36,  38 (1st Cir.  1993).   That wise  adage is
______



          fully  applicable here.    Accordingly, we  affirm  the order  of



          dismissal for substantially the reasons elucidated in the opinion



          below.



                    We need  go no further.   The judgment of  the district



          court is summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
___











          Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________

























                                          2