Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carlisle v. Daewon Kangup Co., Ltd.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division

March 29, 2018

LASONIA CARLISLE, et al., Plaintiffs/Relators,
v.
DAEWON KANGUP CO., LTD.,, Defendants.

          RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         In this qui tam action, the plaintiffs-relators seek to recover damages under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729 et seq., alleging that the defendants conspired to submit false claims to the government. In their amended complaint filed on May 17, 2016, plaintiffs-relators Lasonia Carlisle (“Carlisle”) and Jimmy Arwood (“Arwood”) accuse the corporate defendants, Daewon Kangup Co., Ltd. (“Daewon Kangup”) and Daewon America, Inc. (“Daewon America”), and individual defendants, Andrew Dooho Hur (“Hur”) and Won Kwon (“Kwon”), quality control managers for Daewon America, of making false statements and false claims related to defective automobile parts manufactured at Daewon America's Opelika, Alabama plant. (Doc. # 11). The United States declined to intervene in this action as a matter of right. See Doc. # 12.

         The court has jurisdiction of the plaintiffs-relators' claims pursuant to its federal subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

         On June 12, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).[1] (Doc. # 36). After careful consideration of the motion to dismiss, and the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the court concludes the motion to dismiss should be granted.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept well-pled facts as true, but the court is not required to accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009) (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions”). In evaluating the sufficiency of a plaintiff's pleadings, the court must indulge reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, “but we are not required to draw plaintiff's inference.” Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir. 2005). Similarly, “unwarranted deductions of fact” in a complaint are not admitted as true for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations. Id.. See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681 (stating conclusory allegations are “not entitled to be assumed true”).

         A complaint may be dismissed if the facts as pled do not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (explaining “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-62 (2007) (retiring the prior “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts” standard). In Twombly, the Supreme Court emphasized that a complaint “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations in a complaint need not be detailed but “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (internal citations and emphasis omitted). In Iqbal, the Supreme Court reiterated that although Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does demand “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 556 U.S. at 678. The well-pled allegations must nudge the claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

         DISCUSSION

         In this False Claims Act case, the plaintiffs-relators' claims center around actions taken at Daewon America's plant in Opelika, Alabama.

The False Claims Act (“the Act”) permits private persons to file a form of civil action (known as qui tam) against, and recover damages on behalf of the United States from any person who: (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer of employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)-(2)

United States ex rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of Am., Inc., 290 F.3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (footnotes omitted).

         Moreover, “complaints alleging violations of the False Claims Act are governed by Rule 9(b).” Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1012 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. HPC Healthcare, Inc., __ Fed.Appx. __, __, 2018 WL 526039, *3 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2018) (“the complaint must satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirement for claims alleging fraud.”)

To state a claim under the False Claims Act with particularity, the complaint must allege “‘facts as to time, place, and substance of the defendant's alleged fraud, ' [and] ‘the details of the defendants' allegedly fraudulent acts, when they occurred, and who engaged in them.'” Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1310 (quoting Cooper v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.19 F.3d 562, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.