Questions Follow 9th Circ. Solidification Of Escobar Test

Law360 (December 19, 2018, 12:13 PM EST) -- On Nov. 24, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Stephens Institute's petition for rehearing en banc in United States ex rel. Rose v. Stephens Institute,[1] a False Claims Act case in which the relators alleged an "implied false certification" theory of liability. The decision left in place the panel's holding that the test laid out in United Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar,[2] is mandatory in False Claims Act cases alleging this theory of liability, supplanting the test previously articulated in Ebeid ex rel. United States v. Lungwitz.[3] By declining to elaborate on...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!