ST. LOUIS – A federal judge has granted a defendant named in a False Claims Act lawsuit summary judgment in a case brought by a public sector worker who alleged it was involved in a "pay-to-play" scheme.
U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel at the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed all claims against Eager Road Associates, a business management consulting firm, in a suit brought by relator Eric Fields.
According to the June 15 order, Fields is a former employee of Bi-State Development Agency who sued in 2014 claiming Bi-State and Eager Road violated the False Claims Act by falsely certifying compliance with federal law in order to receive federal public transit funds between 2009 and 2011.
Fields alleged that Bi-State required its workers to support former St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley's election campaign and a local sales tax proposition, instituted a pay-to-play scheme with political donors such as Eager Road's manager Don Musick III and failed to appraise a parking garage, identified as "the Meridien" in the ruling, before purchasing it from Eager Road "at an inflated price."
Sippel had previously denied Bi-State's motions for summary judgment, which were affirmed by the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Bi-State's petition for writ of certiorari.
He also had previously denied Eager Road's motion to dismiss in 2015, "except to the extent that Fields asserted claims against Eager Road for a Hatch Act violation or for a False Claims Act violation under a conspiracy liability theory."
After the 8th Circuit ruled in the case, Eager Road moved for summary judgment.
In its argument for summary judgment, Eager Road claims that Fields has no evidence to support his claim that it participated in Bi-State's certifications to the federal government.
Sippel agreed with Eager Road in that Fields did not present any evidence that Eager Road participated in the certification process "in any way."
"False Claims Act liability does not arise merely from underlying violations of other laws. Instead, a defendant must have 'presented or caused to be presented' the claim itself," Sippel wrote.