Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

1-13-2009

Rodriguez v. Our Lady Lourdes Med Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 06-5207

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

Recommended Citation "Rodriguez v. Our Lady Lourdes Med" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1962. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1962

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-5207

RENEE RODRIGUEZ; BARBARA KING, In the Name of the United States Government Pursuant to the False Claims Act,

, and Individually Pursuant to the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act

Appellants

v.

OUR LADY OF LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-00129) District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 1, 2008

Before: AMBRO, WEIS, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed December 30, 2008)

ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed December 30, 2008, be amended as follows: On pages 11–12, starting at the fourth line from the bottom, replace

As such, we will uphold the District Court’s dismissal only if, accepting “all well pleaded factual allegations as true and draw[ing] all reasonable inferences from such allegations in favor of the complainant,” it is clear that Rodriguez and King cannot prove a set of facts that would entitle them to relief. Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc.,

(3d Cir. 2003).

with

As such, we “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.”

at 233 (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd.,

, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)).

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: January 13, 2009 tmm/cc: Ross Begelman, Esq. Brian P. Flaherty, Esq. Gregory A. Lomax, Esq. Stuart A. Minkowitz, Esq. Marc M. Orlow, Esq. Drew A. Wixted, Esq.

2