LeBlanc v. Raytheon Company
Case Date: 08/09/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1263
|
_________________________ No. 95-1263 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. RONALD A. LEBLANC, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Appellee. _________________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ _________________________ Before Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges, ______________ and Lisi*, District Judge. ______________ _________________________ Robert D. City, with whom Philip di Domenico and City, _______________ ____________________ _____ Hayes, Meagher & Dissette, P.C. were on brief, for appellant. _______________________________ Martin J. Newhouse, with whom Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and ___________________ _______________________ Ropes & Gray were on brief, for appellee. ____________ _________________________ August 9, 1995 _________________________ ____________________ *Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation. SELYA, Circuit Judge. This appeal stems from a so- SELYA, Circuit Judge. ______________ called qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, 31 ___ ___ U.S.C. 3730 (1988). The defendant moved, early on, to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. ___ 12(b)(1). The court below granted the motion, writing a careful, well-reasoned opinion that correctly analyzed and applied the relevant doctrines. See United States ex rel. LeBlanc v. ___ _________________________________ Raytheon Co., 874 F. Supp. 35 (D. Mass. 1995). ____________ It is our preferred practice that when, as now, "a trial court has produced a first-rate work product, a reviewing tribunal should hesitate to wax longiloquent simply to hear its own words resonate." In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire _________________________________________ Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993). That wise adage is ______ fully applicable here. Accordingly, we affirm the order of dismissal for substantially the reasons elucidated in the opinion below. We need go no further. The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___ Affirmed. Affirmed. ________ 2 |