U.S. ex rel. Schwartz v. Document Reprocessors of New York Inc.

DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff-Relator Quintin J. Schwartz, Sr. (“Relator”) alleges a claim under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§3729-3732 (the “FCA”). (Dkt. 34). In the amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, Relator asserts that defendants Document Reprocessors of New York, Inc. (“DRNY”), Eric Lundquist, and Muriel Lundquist (collectively “Defendants”) made false representations and certifications under the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. §3141, and other prevailing wage and benefit requirements applicable to “Defendants’ General Service Administration (‘GSA’) Federal Supply Schedule contract (GS-10F00126X)[.]” (Id. at 2). Relator further claims that he was fired in retaliation for his efforts to stop this wrongdoing. (Id. at

56-58).¹ Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). (Dkt. 41). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background The following facts are taken from the amended complaint. As is required at this stage of the proceedings, the Court treats Relator’s factual allegations as true. DRNY is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Penn Yan, New York. (Dkt. 34 at 12). It is hired by “corporations, businesses and governmental entities to recover and restore books, documents and other media that had been damaged by fire or flooding, often in connection with some unanticipated disaster such as hurricanes or other extreme weather.” (Id. at 18). Mr. Lundquist is DRNY’s Chief Executive Officer, while Ms. Lundquist is Vice-President and Secretary. (Id. at