Hutchins v. Wilentz Goldman ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2001 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    8-16-2001
    Hutchins v. Wilentz Goldman
    Precedential or Non-Precedential:
    Docket 98-6248
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001
    Recommended Citation
    "Hutchins v. Wilentz Goldman" (2001). 2001 Decisions. Paper 180.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001/180
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2001 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    Filed August 16, 2001
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    Nos. 98-6248 & 98-6339
    CHARLES T. HUTCHINS
    v.
    WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER;
    LOUIS DeLUCIA;
    JOHN DOES "1" THROUGH JOHN DOES "3";
    JOAN LAVERY
    (Newark D.C. Civil No. 96-4678)
    CHARLES T. HUTCHINS
    v.
    ABC CORP., SEALED
    (Newark D.C. Civil No. 96-5988)
    Charles T. Hutchins,
    Appellant
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    D.C. Civil Action Nos. 96-cv-04678 & 96-cv-05988
    (Honorable Katharine S. Hayden)
    Argued February 8, 2001
    Before: SCIRICA, McKEE and STAPLETON, Circuit   Judges
    ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the
    above case, filed June 13, 2001, be amended as follows:
    Page 2, lines 5-6 of the introductory paragraph, which
    read:
    "fraudulent claims that cause economic loss to the
    government."
    shall read:
    "fraudulent claims that cause or would cause economic
    loss to the government."
    Page 8, lines 1-6, which read:
    "Claims Act a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant
    presented or caused to be presented to an agent of the
    United States a claim for payment; (2) the claim was
    false or fraudulent; (3) the defendant knew the claim
    was false or fraudulent; and (4) the United States
    suffered damages as a result of the false or fraudulent
    claim."
    shall read:
    "Claims Act a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant
    presented or caused to be presented to an agent of the
    United States a claim for payment; (2) the claim was
    false or fraudulent; and (3) the defendant knew the
    claim was false or fraudulent."
    Page 8, lines 14-17, which read:
    "The crux of the dispute is whether the submission of
    these fraudulent bills was a ``false claim for payment or
    approval' that caused damage to the United States
    government."
    shall read:
    "The crux of the dispute is whether the submission of
    these fraudulent bills was a ``false claim for payment or
    approval.' "
    2
    Page 8, lines 18-19, which read:
    "Hutchins contends that even if no government money
    were expended from the United States Treasury in
    connection"
    shall read:
    "Hutchins contends that even if no claim were made
    against United States Treasury money in connection"
    Page 8, line 32, which reads:
    "does not cause the government economic loss"
    shall read:
    "would not cause the government economic loss"
    Page 9, line 19. Before the sentence beginning,"As the
    Supreme Court recognized," insert:
    "While ``recovery under the [False Claims Act] is not
    dependent upon the government's sustaining monetary
    damages,' Varljen v. Cleveland Gear Co., Inc. , 
    250 F.3d 426
    , 429 (6th Cir. 2001), the Act is only intended to
    cover instances of fraud ``that might result in financial
    loss to the Government.' 
    Neifert-White, 390 U.S. at 232
    ."
    Page 10, line 20, which reads:
    "which causes economic loss to the United States"
    shall read:
    "which attempts to or actually causes economic loss to
    the United States"
    Page 11, lines 1-4, which read:
    "For these reasons, we hold the submission of false
    claims to the United States government for approval
    which do not cause financial loss to the government
    are not within the purview of the False Claims Act."
    shall read:
    "For these reasons, we hold the submission of false
    claims to the United States government for approval
    which do not or would not cause financial loss to the
    3
    government are not within the purview of the False
    Claims Act."
    Page 11, line 9, which reads:
    "these claims result in economic loss to the United
    States"
    shall read:
    "these claims would result in economic loss to the
    United States"
    Page 12, line 16, which reads:
    "caused economic loss to the United States Treasury."
    shall read:
    "caused or would cause economic loss to the United
    States Treasury."
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Anthony J. Scirica
    Circuit Judge
    DATED: August 16, 2001
    A True Copy:
    Teste:
    Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-6248

Filed Date: 8/16/2001

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015