ILNews

7th Circuit reverses sanctions against Plews Shadley, other firms in False Claims Act case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After finding that a federal court in Indianapolis erred in dismissing a former ITT Educational Services Inc. employee’s False Claims Act lawsuit, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the nearly $350,000 in sanctions imposed against three law firms representing the woman.

Debra Leveski worked at ITT for more than 10 years – first as an inside recruitment representative, then as a financial aid administrator. After she left the company following the settlement of a sexual harassment suit she filed against ITT, she was contacted by Mississippi attorney Timothy J. Mathusheski. The attorney sought former ITT employees to bring an FCA suit.

Leveski, who had been told by supervisors and other employees that her pay increases as a recruit representative and financial aid administrator depended on the numbers of students who, among other things, enrolled and received financial aid, decided to file the suit on behalf of the government in 2007. Indianapolis firm Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP and Motley Rice LLP, headquartered in Charleston, S.C., later joined as Leveski’s attorneys along with Mathusheski.

The suit alleges that ITT, headquartered in Carmel, knowingly submitted false claims to the Department of Education in order to receive funding from federal student financial assistance programs. The suit survived two motions to dismiss in District Court, although the timeframe in the suit was limited to July 2001 to July 2007. But when the case was transferred to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, she dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. Walton Pratt said Leveski’s allegations had already been publicly disclosed in United States ex rel. Graves v. ITT Educ. Servs. Inc., 284 F. Supp. 2d 487 (S.D. Tex. 2003), and she was not the original source of her allegations. The judge also sanctioned the three firms and Mathusheski $394,998.33 for filing a suit she deemed frivolous.

The 7th Circuit found Leveski’s allegations are not substantially similar to the relators’ allegations in Graves. In Graves, two former employees who worked for ITT as inside recruitment representatives for less than two years alleged ITT violated the Higher Education Act by illegally paying incentive compensation to its RRs. The law in effect at the time of the lawsuit prohibited adjusting compensation for student recruiters and financial aid officers based solely on the number of students recruited, admitted, enrolled or awarded financial aid.

The sham compensation scheme and the financial aid violations alleged by Leveski are different than the outright quota system alleged by the Graves relators, Judge John Daniel Tinder wrote in Debra Leveski v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. and Appeals of: Motley Rice LLP, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, The Law Offices of Timothy J. Matusheski and Timothy J. Matusheski, 12-1369, 12-1967, 12-1979, 12-2008, 12-2891.

And those allegations are different enough from the Graves allegations to bring her suit outside the public disclosure bar of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4).

“We believe that Leveski’s case is yet another instance of a district court dismissing an FCA suit after viewing the allegations at too high a level of generality,” Tinder concluded.

Her case rests on genuinely new and material information, so the District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over her case under Section 3730(e)(4)(A). The judges also found that Leveski has direct and independent knowledge of her allegations, and thus, is the original source of them.

Because the 7th Circuit found the case merits further development and Leveski’s allegations are sufficiently distinct from prior public disclosures, the sanctions against the law firms also were reversed.

“We do not know whether Leveski will ultimately prevail, nor do we state any opinion as to whether Leveski should ultimately prevail. But we do believe that Leveski should be allowed to litigate her case on the merits, and thus, sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit are inappropriate,” Tinder wrote. If it turns out Leveski made up all of her allegations and supporting evidence, then sanctions may be warranted.

After the ruling Monday, PSRB managing partner John Ketcham said in a statement, “We are gratified that the Seventh Circuit has held this case is ‘substantial’, which is what our client has contended all along, and reversed the sanctions.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT