author: SESSIONS, District Judge:

text:
    John C. PRATHER, on behalf of himself and the United States of America, and the several states of California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT&T, INC.; Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon Communications; Qwest Communications International, Inc.; Sprint Nextel Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17489
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted September 14, 2016, San Francisco, California
    Filed February 6, 2017

      John G. Balestriere (argued) and Jillian L. McNeil, Balestriere Fariello, New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Mark E. Haddad (argued), Collin Wedel (argued), and Douglas A. Axel, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee AT&T.
    Laura K. Lin, Jonathan H. Blavin, and Jerome C. Roth, Munger Tolies & Olson LLP, San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellee Célico Partnership.
    Breena M. Roos, Kathleen M. O’Sullivan, and David F. Taylor, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Defendants-Appellees Sprint Nextel Corp. and Qwest Communications International Inc.
    Benjamin M. Stoll and Edward C. Bar-nidge, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellee Sprint Nextel Corp.
    Before: RONALD M. GOULD and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM K. SESSIONS III, District Judge.

       The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

   OPINION

SESSIONS, District Judge:

OVERVIEW

John C. Prather, a longtime state prosecutor, brought a qui tam action alleging that the largest telecommunications (“tele-com”) companies in the United States were fraudulently overcharging the federal government for surveillance services. The district court dismissed Prather’s action under the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) public disclosure bar, which states that once allegations of fraud have entered the public domain a person may not bring a qui tam action unless he can prove that he was an original source of those allegations. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) (2006). For the reasons set forth below, we agree that Prather did not qualify as an original source and affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Prather served as an attorney in state government for over thirty years. He began his service as an Assistant Attorney General in his native state of North Carolina, then moved to New York and joined the office of the Manhattan District Attorney. In 1989 he became the Deputy Chief of the Frauds Bureau in that office, and in 1992 was appointed Senior Investigative Counsel in the Rackets Bureau. He joined the New York Office of the Attorney General (“NYOAG”) in 1999. From 2002 to 2008, Prather served as the Deputy Attorney General in charge of the NYOAG’s Organized Crime Task Force (“OCTF”). When he initiated this qui tam action, he was serving as the Deputy Inspector General for Investigation in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Office of the Inspector General.

During his many years as a government attorney, Prather supervised hundreds of wiretaps. The OCTF alone conducted over 200 wiretaps per year. As head of the OCTF, Prather was authorized to determine when it was necessary to seek court permission to use wiretaps, and to personally apply for eavesdropping warrants. He also reviewed telecom companies’ rate sheets and developed surveillance budgets.

Until the mid-1990s, most wiretaps required the manual “bugging” of a phone or phone line. To bug a phone line, law enforcement would either physically attach a device to the phone wire or place a bug inside the phone itself. The phone company would then set up a separate line into which law enforcement could dial and listen to the conversations taking place over the bugged line. The separate line was essentially the same as any other business or residential phone line provided by the phone company.

With the emergence of cellular phones, this method of bugging telephones was no longer effective. In 1994, Congress passed the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies Act (“CALEA”), authorizing the payment of $500 million to telecom companies for investment in the hardware and software necessary to maintain law enforcement’s ability to effectively eavesdrop despite technological developments in telecommunications. See 47 U.'S.C. § 1001-1010. Prather alleges that as a result of these upgrades, phone companies can now, “by a simple flick of a switch,” duplicate and forward to law enforcement both a call’s audio content and its associated information, such as caller identification. ER 188.

By law, the government is required to pay the telecom companies for their assistance with eavesdropping procedures. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“OCCSSA”), as amended, requires phone carriers to “furnish the applicant [requesting eavesdropping] forthwith all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such provider ... is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted.” 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4). In turn, law enforcement must compensate carriers for the “reasonable expenses incurred in providing such facilities or assistance.” Id.

The OCCSSA does not define “reasonable expenses.” Nor does the more-recently enacted CALEA reference the reimbursement provision in the OCCSSA. In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued an Order and Final Rule stating that “carriers can recover at least a portion of their CALEA software and hardware costs by charging to [law enforcement agencies], for each electronic surveillance order authorized by the CA-LEA, a fee that includes recovery of capital costs, as well as recovery of the specific costs associated with each order.” In re Commc’ns Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 17 FCC Red. 6896, 6917 ¶ 60 (2002).

Prather claims that the telecom companies have used CALEA to overcharge law enforcement agencies for wiretaps and related surveillance • assistance. He asserts that although the work involved in providing a wiretap has decreased since the technological changes funded by CALEA, charges for such services have generally increased tenfold since the law was passed. Prather allegedly witnessed these price increases himself through his work as a prosecutor, and as a result of information he obtained from telecom company representatives.

Prather claims that he spoke with his superiors at the NYOAG about the suspected overcharges as early as 1999. He reportedly raised similar concerns with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. There is no allegation that he spoke to or otherwise alerted the federal government prior to 2004, when the FCC requested input from law enforcement agencies about their wiretap costs. The FCC inquiry was spurred by a joint petition submitted by the DOJ, FBI, and DEA seeking a review of those costs. Among the issues identified by the petition was the need to “clarify the cost methodology and financial responsibility associated with intercept provisioning.” ER 232, 299-802. The petition also asked the FCC to reverse its 2002 Order allowing carriers to recover CALEA-related costs, including capital investments, through intercept charges.

The FCC issued a formal request for comment on the joint petition on March 12, 2004. New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer was among those who submitted comments. Prather contends he had to convince the person who was preparing the NYOAG’s comments, Susanna Zwer-ling, to include allegations of overcharging. Zwerling eventually requested that Prather submit affidavits as part of the NYOAG’s official submission, the first of which was dated April 12, 2004, and received by the FCC on April 14, 2004. ER 24-32, 33-42; SER 49, 85-87, 137-72. While the affidavits were generated during Prather’s work hours, on his work computer, and submitted in his official capacity, SER 86-88, 90-91, Prather submits that nothing in his role as the head of the' OCTF compelled him to raise the issue of overcharging with either the New York Attorney General or the FCC.

Other law enforcement agencies also offered comments in response to the FCC’s request. Some of those comments were submitted before those of the NYOAG. SER 110-19. Several comments expressed concerns about excessive charges. Id. On April 27, 2004, the DOJ, FBI, and DEA replied with their own concerns about intercept fees. On August 9, 2004, the FCC issued a second request for comments. In response, the NYOAG and Prather reiterated their concerns.

Appellees submit that while Prather alleges overcharges, his claims are speculative. In his work as a prosecutor, Prather received rate sheets from telecom companies listing pricing for surveillance-related services. Those rate sheets did not include information about the companies’ internal costs, and Prather conceded in his deposition that he did not know what a carrier’s actual costs were for wiretapping. SER 76-77 (Q: “You don’t know what, in fact, [the] carriers’ actual costs that they do incur on wiretap provisional services are; correct? A: I don’t.”). Appellees also submit that Prather viewed only one invoice— a $200 charge for a long-distance intercept — from a pre-CALEA wiretap. After CALEA, he reportedly viewed, at most, five other invoices, but does not recall the dates, carriers, amounts, or services involved. SER 67-68.

On May 12, 2006, the FCC issued an order stating that

its prior statement regarding the ability of carriers to recover a portion of their CALEA capital costs through electronic surveillance order charges imposed on [government agencies] ... was made without the benefit of a complete and full record on the issue.... We [now] conclude that, while carriers possess the authority to recover through intercept charges the costs associated with carrying out an intercept that is accomplished using a CALEA-based intercept solution, they are prohibited by CALEA from recovering through intercept charges the costs of making modifications to equipment, facilities, or services ... [or] the costs of developing, installing, and deploying CALEA-based intercept solutions....

SER 207-08; In re Commc’ns Assistance for Law Enforcement Act & Broadband Access & Servs., 21 FCC Rcd. 5360, 5392-93 ¶ 71 (2006) (footnotes omitted). Prather alleges that despite the FCC’s updated position with respect to recoverable costs, telecom companies have continued to overcharge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Prather filed his initial complaint on June 3, 2009. The complaint was unsealed on July 11, 2011, the same day the United States submitted notice of its election not to intervene.

Appellee telecom companies filed a joint motion to dismiss. Dist. Dkt. 63. The district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, and allowed limited discovery on Prather’s status as an original source of his fraud allegations.

Prather filed an amended complaint on July 18, 2012. After he was deposed, Ap-pellees filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on November 5, 2013, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because (1) the 2010 Amendments to the FCA did not apply to Prather’s action; (2) Prather did not have direct knowledge of the alleged fraud; (3) his disclosures were not voluntary in light of his duties as a state prosecutor; and (4) he did not have a hand in commencing an investigation. The district court also dismissed Prather’s state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Prather appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002); Ma v. Reno, 114 F.3d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1997). We must accept the district court’s factual findings relevant to subject matter jurisdiction unless those findings were clearly erroneous. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000).

DISCUSSION

I. Application of the 2010 Amendments to the False Claims Act

Prather brought his claims under the FCA in 2009. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amended the public disclosure bar of the FCA. Prior to 2010, the FCA stated:

No court shall have jurisdiction over an [FCA qui tam] action ... based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.

31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (2006). In 2010, amendments to the FCA removed the reference to jurisdiction and adopted the following language:

The Court shall dismiss an action or claim under this section, unless opposed by the Government, if substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed—
(i) in a Federal criminal, civil, or administrative hearing in which the Government or its agent is a party;
(ii) in a congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other Federal report, hearing, audit, or investigation; or
(iii) from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.

Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 10104(j)(2), 124 Stat. 119, 901-02 (2010 Amendments). Courts have held that these amendments transformed the public disclosure bar from a jurisdictional bar to an affirmative defense. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Ctr., 816 F.3d 37, 40 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Post-amendment, the public-disclosure bar is a grounds for dismissal — effectively, an affirmative defense — rather than a jurisdictional bar.”); United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., 776 F.3d 805, 810 (11th Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that the amended § 3730(e)(4) creates grounds for dismissal for failure to state a claim rather than for lack of jurisdiction.”); see also Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 468, 127 S.Ct. 1397, 167 L.Ed.2d 190 (2007) (“[T]he jurisdictional nature of the original-source requirement [prior to the 2010 Amendments] is clear ex visceribus verbo-rum.”).

Prather submits that the changes to the public disclosure bar were jurisdictional rather than substantive, and that the usual presumption against statutory retroactivity does not apply to jurisdictional changes. Accordingly, he contends that the district court should have applied the amended statute retroactively and placed the burden on Defendants to assert public disclosure as an affirmative defense.

The Supreme Court has determined that the amendments to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) are not retroactive. Graham Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280, 283 n.1, 130 S.Ct. 1396, 176 L.Ed.2d 225 (2010) (“The legislation makes no mention of retroactivity, which would be necessary for its application to pending cases given that it eliminates petitioners’ claimed defense to a qui tarn suit.”). In so holding, the Supreme Court did not differentiate between substantive and jurisdictional provisions. In Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 117 S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997), however, the Court discussed jurisdictional amendments, contrasting those that “affect only where a suit may be brought” with amendments that impact “whether it may be brought at all.” Id. at 951, 117 S.Ct. 1871 (emphasis in original). An amendment that ■ “creates jurisdiction where none previously existed ... speaks not just to the power of a particular court but to the substantive rights of the parties as well. Such a statute, even though phrased in ‘jurisdictional’ terms, is as much subject to our presumption against retroactivity as any other.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Like the 1986 amendments to the FCA’s public disclosure bar discussed in Hughes Aircraft, the 2010 Amendments said nothing about where a suit must be brought, and instead addressed the power of a district court to assert jurisdiction. Specifically, prior to the 2010 Amendments, a district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a case that was barred by the public disclosure provision. After the 2010 Amendments, a court could assert jurisdiction over the relator’s complaint and entertain public disclosure as a defense. Under the Hughes Aircraft analysis, the 2010 Amendments impact the substantive rights of parties. As substantive changes are not applied retroactively, the district court properly determined that the 2010 Amendments do not apply.

II. Whether Prather is an “Original Source”

The FCA imposes civil penalties on any person who defrauds the federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (2006). The statute provides, that, in addition to enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General, a private person may bring a qui tarn action on behalf of the government and himself as the “relator.” Id. § 3730. “If the relator prevails, he receives a percentage of the recovery, with the remainder being paid to the government.” United States ex. rel. Biddle v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford, Jr. Univ., 161 F.3d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1998).

As discussed above, a relator’s action brought under the pre-2010 FCA is juris-dictionally barred if it is “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions ... unless ... the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). Prather concedes that his claims were publicized before he filed suit, and that the public disclosure bar may therefore apply. He can avoid application of the bar, however, if he qualifies as an “original source” of the disclosed information. See id.

There is no dispute that the pre-2010 definition of an “original source” applies to Prather’s claims. The 2010 Amendments substantively changed the “original source” definition, and the new language does not apply retroactively to actions brought prior to the amendment, see United States ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 792 F.3d 1121, 1123 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Prior to 2010, the statute defined an “original source” as “an individual who [1] has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and [2] has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action ... based on the information.” Id. at 1128 (quoting version of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B) in effect prior to 2010). Prather fails to satisfy either of those requirements.

A. Direct and Independent Knowledge of Fraud

To have direct knowledge under the statute, a person’s knowledge must be firsthand, obtained through his own labor, and unmediated by anything else. United States ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Hartpence, 792 F.3d at 1128 n.6. The person must also have “tru,e ‘knowledge,’ ” as opposed to guesswork or suspicion, since “the purposes of the Act would not be served by allowing a relator to maintain a qui tarn suit based on pure speculation or conjecture.” United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Servs., 163 F.3d 516, 525-26 (9th Cir. 1999); Malhotra v. Steinberg, 770 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that “generalized suspicion” did not constitute “knowledge” of a kickback scheme).

Prather contends that he had firsthand knowledge of fraud based upon his review of invoices sent to the OCTF, his knowledge of average post-CALEA wiretap charges, and his experience setting investigation budgets. He claims to have learned about wiretapping technologies, both pre- and post-CALEA, in conversations with OCTF technology personnel about the OCTF’s own systems, and through participation in CALEA-related conferences. In concluding that the telecom companies were overcharging, Prather compared the post-CALEA charges to an invoice he saw for a 1988 landline wiretap. ASER 53-54. Prather also recalls speaking with a Sprint representative prior to May 2000, who allegedly stated that “some” of Sprint’s charges were for “fees from transaction attorneys who reviewed court rulings on wiretaps.” ER 196; SER 80-81.

The district court disagreed, comparing Prather’s case to Aflatooni, in which a doctor claimed that defendants were committing Medicare fraud by making medically unnecessary referrals. 163 F.3d at 525. On appeal, this Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Dr. Aflatoo-ni’s evidence did not constitute “knowledge” under the FCA. We noted that “Dr. Aflatooni could not recall the name of any [M]edieare patient who was allegedly charged for unnecessary medical services,” and that his evidence against the subcontractor suggested only that it “was negligent in the handling of some of its Medicare claims.” Id. at 526. Further, “Dr. Aflatooni [did] not point to any other evidence in the record which suggested] that he ha[d] ‘information,’ as opposed to speculation,” to support his claim of Medicare fraud. Id.

Prather contends that, unlike Dr. Afla-tooni, he gathered information over a period of years and was not merely guessing when he filed his action. His fundamental premise is that government-funded technological upgrades under CALEA necessarily resulted in a reduction of the labor required to provide discrete wiretap and surveillance services. He contends that despite, doing less work — and so presumably incurring lower costs — the telecom companies have been charging law enforcement agencies several times more than the cost of pre-CALEA wiretaps. He argues he “connect[ed] the dots” to conclude that OCTF and other law enforcement agencies have been overcharged.

Prather concedes, however, that he does not know what technologies are being used to provide for surveillance, what labor is actually being performed, and what costs are incurred. Based upon these facts, the district court concluded that Prather’s allegations were largely conjectural. We agree that Prather has filed suit on the basis of speculation, and not — as required by the applicable law — true knowledge of fraudulent misconduct. See id. at 525-26.

Nor are the telecom companies’ charges a fraud that Prather viewed firsthand. The FCA was designed “to encourage insiders to come forward with [information about possible fraud] where they would otherwise have little incentive to do so.” Biddle, 161 F.3d at 538; see also United States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 1149, 1154 (3d Cir. 1991) (noting legislative history of the 1986 amendments to the FCA displayed Congress’s “intent to encourage persons with first-hand knowledge of fraudulent misconduct” to come forward); United States ex rel. Devlin v. State of Cal., 84 F.3d 358, 361 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding relator’s knowledge was “secondhand” because it came from a defendant’s employee “who had firsthand knowledge of the alleged fraud as a result of his employment”). As is evident from his speculative allegations, Prather did not have firsthand knowledge of the true costs of the transactions underlying his FCA suit.

Indeed, Prather’s primary “firsthand” contribution is his inference that the information available amounts to evidence of FCA violations. That assertion, however, does not provide relief from the public disclosure bar, as “[a] relator’s ability to recognize the legal consequences of a publicly disclosed fraudulent transaction does not alter the fact that the material elements of the violation already have been publicly disclosed.” A-1 Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. California, 202 F.3d 1238, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States ex rel. Findley v. FPC-Boron Emps’ Club, 105 F.3d 675, 688 (D.C. Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Alcan Elec. and Engineering, Inc., 197 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 1999) (approving a district court’s conclusion that relator did not have direct knowledge under the FCA “because his investigation merely added a legal name to describe the alleged circle of facts”). We therefore agree with the district court’s conclusion that Prather did not have direct knowledge of fraud sufficient to qualify as an “original source.” See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B).

B. Voluntary Disclosure

In addition to having direct and independent knowledge of fraud, an “original source” under the pre-2010 FCA also must have “voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action.” Id. Prather argues that his disclosures to the FCC were voluntary, as they were not a part of his usual job duties. He also contends that he had to convince his office to include this theory of overcharges, and that he had tried to alert other governmental agencies of such overcharges in prior years.

The district court held that Prather’s disclosures were not voluntary in light of his duties at the NYOAG and the facts underlying his participation in the 2004 FCC inquiry. The district court first considered the requirements of Prather’s work for the State of New York, properly noting that it was not Prather’s job to question the reasonableness of charges by the telecom companies. Prather, 996 F.Supp.2d at 869. The district court then determined:

Even assuming that disclosing fraud was not a part of Relator’s regular job description, his disclosure was involuntary because it was prompted by the FCC’s request for comment and submitted in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General in Charge of the Statewide Organized Crime Task Force, in support [of] the official comments of his superior, the Attorney General. Although Relator asked Zwerling whether “there was a way to address” the issue of overcharging in the comments, he did not attempt to include any information himself and did so only after Zwerling asked him to provide an affidavit.

Id. (citations omitted). The district court also found that prior to 2004, Prather “apparently never even attempted to report his concerns to anyone in the federal government. ... Instead, it was not until the FCC issued its requests for comment and Zwerling asked him to support the Attorney General’s response that [Prather] conveyed his suspicions to the federal government.” Id. at 870.

The district court’s findings as to the affidavits submitted to the FCC are supported by Prather’s deposition testimony. Prather testified that when the FCC sought comments from the NYOAG, Zwer-ling asked him to arrange for an affidavit from the OCTF. At that time, Prather “raised again the notion that [NYOAG was] being overcharged and wondered if there was a way to address that in the filing also.” Prather testified that Zwerling initially said “no ... there was not a place in the comments for [the overcharging issue].” SER 86. Zwerling subsequently “changed her mind, and said [to Prather,] You know what? I think ... maybe we will put an affidavit in about that. Can you do an affidavit for us?’ ” Id. 86-87. Given this testimony, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Prather submitted his information to the FCC after being requested to do so by his office.

Furthermore, this Circuit has long recognized that a government attorney is not a quintessential qui tam relator. See United States ex rel. Fine v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 72 F.3d 740, 742-43 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (“[T]he paradigm qui tam case is one in which an insider at a private company brings an action against his own employer.”); Wang v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1419 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Qui tam suits are meant to encourage insiders privy to a fraud on the government to blow the whistle on the crime.”), overruled on other grounds by Hartpence, 792 F.3d at 1129. In Fine, an en banc panel of this Circuit considered whether a government auditor could be considered an original source of information he had provided to his government employer as part of his job responsibilities. 72 F.3d at 741. The relator in Fine was a former employee of the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Energy, whose job had been to supervise audits conducted by others. Id. at 741-42. “He left the job in 1992, apparently disgruntled because his supervisors either could not or would not take action against every perceived violation he brought to their attention. During the year following his retirement, Fine filed a total of seven qui tam actions under the False Claims Act.” Id. at 742.

The Fine court considered the legislative history and purpose of the FCA, and contemplated whether a qui tam suit brought by a government employee “involve[d] application of a statute to a factual scenario Congress may never have envisioned.” Id. at 743. Ultimately, the Court decided to rely solely on the statute’s “unusually precise” requirement that information be offered “voluntarily.” Id. (quoting United States ex rel. Hagood v. Sonoma Cty. Water Agency, 929 F.2d 1416, 1419 (9th Cir. 1991) and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, the Court questioned whether a salaried government auditor’s disclosure of information learned on the job is truly “voluntary,” citing the dictionary definition of the term: “Acting, or done, of one’s own free will without valuable consideration; acting or done without any present legal obligation to do the thing done or any such obligation that can accrue from the existing state of affairs.” Id. at 744 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2564 (1981) (definition 1(g))) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court concluded that, in contrast with this definition, Fine “acted in exchange for valuable consideration — his salary — and under an employment-related obligation to do the very acts he claims were voluntary.” Id.

Unlike the relator in Fine, it was not Prather’s job to discover and report fraud. Cf. id. at 743 (concluding that Fine “was a salaried government employee, compelled to disclose fraud by the very terms of his employment.”). Nonetheless, the relevant disclosures were made in response to his employer’s request, which in turn was triggered by a federal inquiry. As the district court properly found, it was Zwerling, as the person charged with coordinating the NYOAG’s response, who asked Prather to provide an affidavit on behalf of the Attorney General. For this task, which was accomplished during work hours, on a work computer, and in Prather’s official capacity, Prather was compensated by a government salary.

Prather claims that although he ultimately submitted affidavits to the FCC, he had to fight to have the Attorney General accept his submissions. A similar scenario was addressed in Biddle, which reasoned that

resistance by [Biddle’s] superiors [does not] transform his unearthing of possible fraud into a voluntary investigation. The purposes underlying the FCA are to encourage individuals to report potential fraudulent activities being committed against the government, and to reward them for doing so. But where a government employee is paid to perform this function, the employee should not receive a windfall for merely doing his job ... Uncovering fraud is a formidable task, especially when one’s supervisors may be opposed, uninterested, or even involved in the fraud.

161 F.3d at 542. Biddle further reasoned that, by accepting a job that included fraud reporting, “Biddle assumed the risk of encountering such a difficult situation,” and was therefore not entitled to any windfall via the FCA. Id.

This case is admittedly different from both Fine and Biddle in that no part of Prather’s formal job description included a duty to report fraud against the government. Prather’s job was to prosecute organized crime. The fact remains, however, that he was asked to submit affidavits on behalf of his employer. Although he had suspected fraud for many years and raised those suspicions within the NYOAG, he made no effort on his own to alert the FCC or any other federal agencies of his theories prior to 2004. It was only when Prather was assigned the task of assisting with his employer’s response to the FCC’s request for comments that he raised the matter, after asking if “there was a way to address” the issue of overcharging in the state agency’s response. SER 86. We therefore conclude, like the district court, that Prather’s submissions to the FCC were not “voluntarily provided” as required by the statute. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B).

III. State Law Claims

Without subject matter jurisdiction over Prather’s federal claim, the district court properly concluded it had no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Prather’s state law claims. See Herman Family Revocable Tr. v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 2001).

CONCLUSION

Prather brought a qui tarn action based upon his theory of excessive overcharging by telecom companies. Because Prather was not an “original source” of that information as defined by the FCA, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Prather’s federal and state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

      . The district court, following the law of this Circuit at the time, cited a third "original source” requirement: that the relator "had a hand in the public disclosure of allegations that are part of ... [the] suit.” United States ex rel. Prather v. AT&T, Inc., 996 F.Supp.2d 861, 867 (N.D. Cal. 2013). This Circuit has since found that this third requirement “has no textual basis,” and has thus given “it a respectful burial.” Hartpence, 792 F.3d at 1127-28.

      . See also H.R.Rep. No. 99-660, at 23 (1986) ("The purpose of the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act is to encourage private individuals who are aware of fraud being perpetrated against the Government to bring such information forward.”); S.Rep. No. 99-345, at 14 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5279 (stating that the False Claims Act "reward[s] those private individuals who take significant personal risks to bring such wrongdoing to light”).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GOULD, Circuit Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    JUST FILM, INC.; Rainbow Business Services, DBA Precision Tune Auto Care; Volker von Glasenapp; Jerry Su; Dietz Towing Inc.; The Rose Dress Inc.; Verena Baumgartner; Terry Jordan; Lewis Bae; Erin Campbell, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sam BUONO; Jay Cohen; Sara Krieger; MBF Leasing LLC; Leonard Mezei; Northern Funding, LLC; Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.; SKS Associates LLC, Defendants-Appellants. Rainbow Business Services, DBA Precision Tune Auto Care; Volker von Glasenapp; Jerry Su; Dietz Towing Inc.; The Rose Dress Inc.; Verena Baumgartner; Terry Jordan; Lewis Bae; Erin Campbell, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sam Buono; Jay Cohen; Sara Krieger; MBF Leasing LLC; Leonard Mezei; Northern Funding, LLC; Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.; SKS Associates LLC, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 14-16132, No. 14-16133
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted September 15, 2016, San Francisco, California
    Filed February 7, 2017

      Thomas J. Kavaler (argued), Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, New York; Robert D. Lillienstein and Scott E. Silberfein, Moses & Singer LLP, New York, New York; Rod Divelbiss, JRA Law Partners LLP, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellants.
    Adam J. Gutride (argued) and Seth A. Safier, Gutride Safíer LLP, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Before: RONALD M. GOULD and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges, and JOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge. •

       The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

   OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-Appellees are small businesses and small business owners who leased “point of sale” credit and debit card processing equipment. They allege that Defendants-Appellants (the “Leasing Defendants”) defrauded them in a scheme that involved equipment leases and credit card processing services. Plaintiffs moved to certify five national classes with California-based subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Of the five proposed national classes, the district court certified two: the “SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class” and the “Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class.” Leasing Defendants appeal the district court’s orders certifying these two classes.

Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class and the Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class, we affirm.

I

A. Background

Plaintiffs are small businesses and small business owners who leased “point of sale” credit and debit card processing equipment, such as swipe terminals and pin-pads. Plaintiffs allege that Leasing Defendants, a group of entities who financed their acquisition of the equipment, defrauded them in a scheme involving equipment leases and credit card processing services.

Plaintiffs describe the alleged fraud that swindled them as follows: Credit and debit card transactions are processed through financial networks called interchanges that are run by entities such as Visa and Mast-ercard. Financial institutions may become members of the interchange and can then sell card processing services directly to merchants or indirectly through entities known as Independent Sales Organizations and Merchant Service Providers (“ISOs/MSPs”). ISOs/MSPs must be licensed and registered with the financial institutions and both Visa and Mastercard. Merchants must acquire specific equipment necessary to process credit and debit card transactions and must also pay a fee for each transaction.

Plaintiffs allege that Leasing Defendants conspired with the ISO/MSP Defendants (the “Merchant Service Defendants”) to market fraudulent, long-term equipment leases and credit card processing services to merchants. Merchant Service Defendants sought merchants and induced them to enroll in such leases through “a series of deceitful misrepresentations and forged documents,” whereby merchants paid fees in excess of standard industry rates. The high lease costs did not pay for the equipment, but instead, primarily went toward Merchant Service Defendants’ commissions for securing the leases and toward Leasing Defendants’ profits.

1. The Post-Lease Tax Collection Scheme

More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that in 2011, Leasing Defendants conspired among themselves to defraud former lessee merchants by collecting or attempting to collect taxes that were not actually due or paid to any taxing authority. Leasing Defendants calculated property taxes using inaccurate tax information, such as the wrong property tax base and incorrect years that lessees were enrolled in the leases, and compiled the results in a spreadsheet called Schedule 1. Schedule 1 listed more than 107,000 merchants owing over $10 million in back property taxes and administrative fees. Leasing Defendants next instructed a third party to send a form letter to the former lessees telling them that Defendant SKS Associates LLC had acquired collection rights, and deductions would occur based on the purported back taxes merchants owed. Leasing Defendants collected the taxes and fees from merchants with expired leases by making misrepresentations to third party processors and causing processors to authorize Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) withdrawals from the merchants’ bank accounts. Many accounts were actually debited, but Leasing Defendants could only attempt to debit closed bank accounts associated with expired leases. Leasing Defendants also created a network of shell companies to “ensure[ ] that their unlawful acts remain hidden and that victims and the courts are unable to identify the responsible party.”

Plaintiff Erin Campbell does business as the Silicon Valley Pet Clinic. Campbell seeks to represent a class of lessees targeted under this post-lease expiration tax collection scheme. She entered into a lease for a credit card terminal with CIT Corporation and provided her bank account information to make monthly payments of about $86.55. GCN Holdings, LLC later acquired Campbell’s lease, and Defendant Northern Leasing Systems serviced the lease on behalf of GCN. Campbell began taking steps to terminate her lease in January 2007 and completed termination in June 2007. Yet, in March 2011, Campbell received a letter (the “Notice of Debt”) from Defendant SKS Associates, which Plaintiffs allege was written by Defendant Northern Leasing Systems. The letter stated that SKS Associates had acquired the rights and title to her old lease, that she owed $85.50 for taxes and filing costs associated with her equipment, and that the amount would be deducted on March 15, 2011. Campbell called SKS Associates about the charge, and the customer service representative stated that Leasing Defendants had paid taxes on Campbell’s behalf and that she now owed them for that payment. The representative warned Campbell that if she did not pay, Leasing Defendants would report the amount owed to credit bureaus and pursue other methods of collection. Campbell alleges she spent several hours of her normal work time investigating the claims in the letter and paid an employee $7.50 to investigate the claims, and compute what Campbell paid during the lease.

2. The Property Tax Scheme

Plaintiffs also allege that Leasing Defendants collected property taxes using an inaccurate methodology: rather than collecting property taxes based on the actual cost of equipment (the “Equipment Cost”), Leasing Defendants calculated taxes using a higher base — the stream of income a lease generated (the “Acquisition Cost”). Plaintiffs contend that the difference between the two costs is large. For example, Plaintiff Just Film’s Acquisition Cost was $5,429.19, and Plaintiff Dietz Towing’s Acquisition Cost was $8,686. By contrast, the Equipment Cost was only $858.

Leasing Defendants collected property taxes using the higher Acquisition Cost as the tax base for several years but later switched to calculating property tax using the Equipment Cost as the tax base. Plaintiffs allege that after the switch, Defendant Northern Leasing Systems never told merchants that it had wrongly overcharged them for property taxes and did not take any steps to refund merchants for its mistakes.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in state court, which Defendants removed to federal court. In their Third Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code; violations of the ' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962; violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681; breach of contract; deceit and/or misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; and conversion.

In April 2011, Plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order, asking the district court to enjoin Leasing Defendants’ collection of post-lease expiration taxes and administrative fees. The district court granted the application, and in June 2011, issued a preliminary injunction. We affirmed the preliminary injunction order in Just Film, Inc. v. Merchant Servs., Inc., 474 Fed.Appx. 493 (9th Cir. 2012).

In December 2013, the district court granted a motion for final approval of the class action settlement with respect to the Merchant Service Defendants.

In May 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to certify an overarching class and five separate subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3). Two of the subclasses were certified and are relevant to this appeal: (1) the “SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class,” and (2) the “Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class.” The SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class is defined as “[a]ll persons and businesses whose lease numbers appeared on Schedule 1” with a national class pursuing RICO and RICO conspiracy claims and a California subclass pursuing an Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claim under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. The Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class is defined as “[a]ll persons and businesses who [from March 26, 2006 to the present] paid any Leasing Defendants property taxes based on a cost greater than the ‘equipment cost’ ” with a national class seeking to bring RICO, RICO conspiracy, fraud, and breach of contract claims, and a California subclass seeking to bring negligent misrepresentation, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and UCL claims.

The district court granted Plaintiffs’ class certification motion in part on December 20, 2012. The court certified the California subclass of the proposed SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class to pursue a UCL claim; the Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class to pursue a breach of contract claim; and the California subclass of the Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class to pursue a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and a UCL claim.

Thereafter, Campbell filed a motion requesting leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that order. The district court granted Campbell’s motion for reconsideration, and on March 17, 2014, the court certified the nationwide SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class to pursue RICO and RICO conspiracy claims.

Leasing Defendants filed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), a petition for permission to appeal the orders, which we granted. In this consolidated appeal, Leasing Defendants challenge the district court’s class certification orders, arguing that: (1) Plaintiffs did not establish typicality, commonality, and. predominance for the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class; and (2) Plaintiffs did not establish commonality, predominance, and superiority for the Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class.

II

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). We review a district court’s decision to certify a class for abuse of discretion, and accord the district court “noticeably more deference” when reviewing a grant of class certification than when reviewing a denial. Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., 731 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2010)). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court, in making a discretionary ruling, relies upon an improper factor, omits consideration of a factor entitled to substantial weight, or mulls the correct mix of factors but makes a clear error of judgment in assaying them.” Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite the considerable deference we give to a grant of class certification, it will always be considered an abuse of discretion if the district court materially misstates or misunderstands the applicable law. Yokoyama v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]his court has oft repeated that an error of law is an abuse of discretion.”) (emphasis in original).

Ill

The district court certified two Rule 23(b)(3) classes. Gaining certification under that provision is a two-step process. A plaintiff must first show that the class meets the following four requirements of Rule 23(a):

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). Next, the plaintiff must establish “that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action'is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); see Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1186. The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating that the class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)).

A. The SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class

Campbell represents the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class in pursuing RICO, RICO conspiracy, and UCL claims. She alleges that Leasing Defendants debited or attempted to debit bank accounts of former lessees in a spurious tax collection scheme. Leasing Defendants argue that Campbell’s RICO claim is not typical of the class, and that Plaintiffs did not establish commonality and predominance. To establish a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity (known as predicate acts) (5) causing injury to plaintiffs business or property.” Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We address the challenges to class certification raised on this appeal.

1. Typicality

Typicality focuses on the class representative’s claim — but not the specific facts from which the claim arose — and ensures that the interest of the class representative “aligns with the interests of the class.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). The requirement is permissive, such that “representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 685 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Measures of typicality include “whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.’ ” Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125, 1141 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508). A court should not certify a class if “there is a danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.” Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Leasing Defendants argue Campbell’s claim is not typical of the class because (1) Campbell’s legal theory is different from that of the class, (2) her injuries are based on a different predicate act than the injuries of the class, (3) her damages are different from those of the class, and (4) she faces unique defenses. We reject each argument and conclude that the district court did not err in finding Campbell’s claim typical of the class.

First, Leasing Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs’ legal theory. Leasing Defendants describe it as follows: they made misrepresentations to two third-party ACH processors, and the ACH processors relied on the misrepresentations and debited class members’ bank accounts without authorization. Therefore, Leasing Defendants assert the class’s injuries are attributable to third-party rebanee on Leasing Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations, and Leasing Defendants assert that Campbell’s own legal theory necessarily differs from that of the class because her bank account was not actually debited.

Plaintiffs actually allege a broader fraudulent scheme in which Leasing Defendants conspired to defraud former lessees through a course of conduct which injured Campbell as well as other class members. Plaintiffs allege that Leasing Defendants planned to collect from former lessees past taxes that were not due, and that as part of the fraudulent scheme, Leasing Defendants ran a faulty simulation to calculate the taxes and fees of more than 107,000 merchants with expired leases, with the results compiled on Schedule 1; sent letters to merchants that inaccurately stated that an audit had revealed that the merchants owed property taxes and administrative fees; created another entity to ensure that ACH regulators would not learn that Leasing Defendants were collecting payments; applied to new banks to access the ACH system to debit the bank accounts associated with the expired leases; sent collections letters to third party bank processors; and sent electronic notices to merchants’ banks.

Campbell is one of the merchants from whom Leasing Defendants made or attempted to make unauthorized ACH deductions. Plaintiffs presented evidence showing that Campbell was the personal guarantor of an expired lease; that she received a letter from SKS advising her that an audit was conducted and that she owed $85.50 for certain taxes and related fees; that she called Defendants and they informed her that she owed money; and that Defendants subsequently admitted that the amount they sought to collect from Campbell was inaccurate. Campbell’s claim is reasonably coextensive with that of the class because she alleges Leasing Defendants committed the same overall course of misconduct against other members of the class — seeking to collect alleged past taxes and fees through subterfuge and misrepresentation — and the class’s alleged injuries also resulted from that course of misconduct. See Parsons, 754 F.3d at 686 (concluding that the named plaintiffs met the typicality requirement because their injury “is a result of a course of conduct that is not unique to any of them; and they allege that the injury follows from the course of conduct at the center of the class claims”) (citing Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508). Her claim is typical of the class because it shares “some common question of law and fact with class members’ claims.” Newberg on Class Actions § 3:31 (5th ed.).

Leasing Defendants next make the closely related argument that Campbell’s claims are not typical because they do not focus on the same injurious conduct as that of the class. They contend that Campbell was harmed by the Notice of Debt sent directly to her, whereas the class alleges injury based on- the misrepresentations made to the ACH processors. Plaintiffs stress that all class members need not have suffered an identical injury; instead, they need to prove that Leasing Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering, and that at least one of the acts within the pattern caused the class injury. According to Plaintiffs, all class members, including Campbell, have been injured by Leasing Defendants’ course of conduct.

Again, Leasing Defendants construe Plaintiffs’ claim too narrowly. The proposed SKS Post-Lease Expiration class’s RICO and RICO conspiracy claims are based on a broader scheme that Leasing Defendants crafted to collect purported back taxes and administrative fees. The pattern of racketeering includes Leasing Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations to ACH processors, but also include the letters Leasing Defendants sent to class members claiming an audit revealed additional property taxes and fees were owed and concealing their identity to banks and merchants while pursuing collection.

Campbell’s injuries stem from the same scheme, although the specific predicate act that caused her injury may differ from the acts that caused injury to other class members. Substantively, Campbell’s allegation of harm based on some of the activities comprising the RICO violation is sufficient. See Deppe v. Tripp, 863 F.2d 1356, 1366 (7th Cir. 1988) (“[N]o requirement exists that the plaintiff must suffer an injury from two or more predicate acts, or from all 'of the predicate acts. Thus, a RICO verdict can be sustained when a pattern of racketeering acts existed, but when only one act caused injury.”) (internal citation omitted); Town of Kearny v. Hudson Meadows Urban Renewal Corp., 829 F.2d 1263, 1268 (3d Cir.1987) (holding that the RICO statute required only injury from “any predicate act,” not from an entire pattern of racketeering). Given the nature of RICO liability, the typicality requirement necessarily focuses on whether Campbell was injured by the same 'pattern of racketeering as the other class members.

Defendants next contend that Campbell’s injury is different from the rest of the class because ACH processors did not actually debit her account. It is true that Campbell’s account was not actually debited because it was closed, while members of the class did have funds debited from their bank accounts without authorization. Instead, Campbell alleges damages in the form of time taken off from work and payment to an assistant to research her financial records upon receiving the Notice of Debt. Plaintiffs describe the class’s injuries as: (1) the amounts Defendants debited from their bank accounts; and (2) costs class members incurred as a result of Defendants’ bogus collection efforts. Plaintiffs maintain that Campbell and the class were injured by the same course of conduct, and argue that the differences in the nature of the injuries are relevant only to the extent, and calculation, of damages.

The district court cited to this court’s decision in Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007), to support its conclusion that differing injuries do not defeat typicality in this action. The district court was correct in its analysis. The relevant portion of Lozano holds, “it is not necessary that all class members suffer the same injury as the ete representative” to satisfy Rule 23(a)(3). Id. at 734. The requirement of typicality is not primarily concerned with whether each person in a proposed class suffers the same type of damages; rather, it is sufficient for typicality if the plaintiff endured a course of conduct directed against the class. Although Campbell was able to fend off the attempted fraud before it reached into and diminished her bank account, there is no reason why she cannot prove the nature of the fraudulent scheme for benefit of all class members, whether or not their precise injuries are identical.

The district court did not misapply Lo-zano, as Leasing Defendants contend. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Campbell’s RICO claims are the same as those of the class and the claim is based on Defendants’ conduct not unique to Campbell. Even if Campbell’s damages differ from the damages of some class members, typicality is not defeated. The class includes merchants whose accounts were actually debited, as well as merchants who spent resources to investigate the Notice of Debt or other representations of the debt owed and so frustrated the fraudulent scheme before it directly impacted their bank accounts.

Leasing Defendants next argue that Campbell is subject to a unique defense — lack of standing to pursue the RICO claim — such that certification of the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class was wrong. To establish standing, “a civil RICO plaintiff must show: (1) that his alleged harm qualifies as injury to his business or property; and (2) that his harm was by reason of the RICO violation, which requires the plaintiff to establish proximate causation.” Canyon Cty. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Leasing Defendants contend that the district court did not address the second element. They again stress that the wrongful conduct alleged by the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class is predicated on Defendants’ misrepresentations toward two third-party ACH processors. These two processors then relied on the misrepresentations and went on to improperly debit class members’ bank accounts without permission. By contrast, Leasing Defendants argue that Campbell’s injury is not a direct or indirect result of this conduct. Because Campbell’s account was not debited, the argument goes, the misrepresentations were not the proximate cause of Campbell’s injuries.

We once more reject Leasing Defendants’ repeated attempt to narrow the scope of activities that comprise the alleged RICO violation. Campbell alleges she suffered an injury to her “business or property” because of Leasing Defendants’ misconduct. The district court properly concluded that Campbell had standing to pursue the RICO claim because, although Defendants did not deduct money from her bank account, she spent time away from her usual work and paid an assistant to help her research and compile records responding to a fraudulent allegation. This amounted to a loss to business or property sufficient to confer standing. See Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 2005).

Finally, Leasing Defendants argue that Campbell would be a poor advocate for the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Lease class members. They cite to In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Payment Card Interchange”), to support their argument that Campbell could not zealously advocate for class members with accounts actually debited. In Payment Card Interchange, the Second Circuit vacated the final approval of a class action settlement between merchants and Visa, Mastercard, and other banks. See id. at 227. The court concluded that class counsel’s unitary representation of the plaintiffs was inadequate, as class counsel represented both merchants in a Rule 23(b)(3) class, pursuing solely monetary relief, and merchants in a Rule 23(b)(2) class, pursuing solely injunctive relief. Id. at 233. The court reasoned that in this settlement, “[ujnitary representation of separate classes that claim distinct, competing, and conflicting relief create unacceptable incentives for counsel to trade benefits to one class for benefits to the other in order somehow to reach a settlement.” Id. at 234. The court was concerned with problems that arise when “(b)(2) and (b)(3) classes do not have independent counsel, seek distinct relief, have non-overlapping membership, and ... are certified as settlement-only.” Id. at 235.

None of the issues identified by Payment Card Interchange is presented in this case. Campbell represents a 23(b)(3) class pursuing monetary damages only and the class was not certified for settlement purposes only. Leasing Defendants do not identify how Campbell’s status as class representative creates an unacceptable incentive as she advocates for the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class.

Campbell, like the proposed class, is a merchant who appeared on Schedule 1. She asserts that Leasing Defendants collected or tried to collect taxes that were not due or paid to any taxing authority and alleges injury based on a course of conduct that is not unique to her.

The district court did not commit a clear error of judgment in concluding that Campbell had standing to assert a RICO claim and that she would not be subject to unique defenses such that typicality would be defeated, nor did it so err in-ultimately determining that Campbell met the typicality requirement. We conclude that the nature of Campbell’s individual claim is reasonably coextensive with that of the class merchants found on Schedule 1. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020; Parsons, 754 F.3d at 686.

2. Commonality and Predominance

“The predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3) focuses on ‘the relationship between the common and individual issues’ in the case, and ‘tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.’ ” Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 737 F.3d 538, 545 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022). “If anything, Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance criterion is even more demanding than Rule 23(a).” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432, 185 L.Ed.2d 515 (2013).

Leasing Defendants argue that the district court erred in certifying the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class because damages are not capable of measurement on a classwide basis and because individualized issues regarding Campbell’s reliance predominate.

Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement takes into account questions of damages. “[Plaintiffs must be able to show that their damages stemmed from the defendant’s actions that created the legal liability.” Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Leyva v. Medline Industries Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir. 2013)). To satisfy this requirement, plaintiffs must show that “damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis,” in the sense that the whole class suffered damages traceable to the same injurious course of conduct underlying the plaintiffs’ legal theory. Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1433-35. However, “damage calculations alone cannot defeat certification.” Yokoyama, 594 F.3d at 1094. “[T]he presence of individualized damages cannot, by itself, defeat class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).” Leyva, 716 F.3d at 514. In a civil RICO action, the measure of damages “is the harm caused by the predicate acts constituting the illegal pattern.” Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Florida, 937 F.2d 447, 451 (9th Cir. 1991). To gain class certification, Plaintiffs need to be able to allege that their damages arise from a course of conduct that impacted the class. But they need not show that each members’ damages from that conduct are identical.

Leasing Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot establish predominance because the damages model advanced by Campbell is not capable of classwide proof. Leasing Defendants stress that the economic impact of the unauthorized ACH debits can be calculated, but Campbell’s harm requires a completely different measurement.

In Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs gave examples of methods for calculating damages. Plaintiffs stressed that it would be easy to identify amounts associated with wrongful ACH withdrawals because Defendants maintained searchable computer records of each lease and each transaction, and because the disputed transactions used common descriptors. Plaintiffs also offered that class members could calculate other damages using their own records. At the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs again proposed these methods for measuring damages: either class members could establish the unauthorized ACH debits or show the “time and effort preventing them from getting money.”

Certainly some individual issues may arise in calculating damages, particularly for class members whose funds were never debited from their bank accounts. However, Plaintiffs generally will be able to “show that their damages stemmed from the [Leasing Defendants’] actions that created the legal liability.” Pulaski, 802 F.3d at 987-88. That some individualized calculations may be necessary does not defeat finding predominance. Id. This case is unlike Comcast, where the Court noted that the courts below did not probe whether the damages model proposed in the antitrust class action measured damages attributable to the plaintiffs’ theory of harm. See 133 S.Ct. at 1435. There, because the model proposed did not “even attempt to” measure only damages attributable to the legal theory, “it [could not] possibly establish that damages are susceptible of measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).” Id. at 1433.

This case presents no issue similar to the one in Comcast. Plaintiffs propose measuring damages that are directly attributable to their legal theory of the harm. If class members establish Leasing Defendants’ liability, damages can be calculated based on (1) the amount of fees, if any, deducted from their bank accounts after their leases were terminated using Leasing Defendants’ own records, and (2) expenses, if any, spent by class members in investigating the scheme using their own records. At this stage, Plaintiffs need only show that such damages can be determined without excessive difficulty and attributed to their theory of liability, and have proposed as much here.

Leasing Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs did not establish commonality and predominance because issues of reliance are highly individualized. Leasing Defendants contend that for Campbell to succeed on her RICO claim, she “must prove that she received and read a Notice of Debt, that she decided to investigate, and that she incurred monetary damage as a result of that decision. If these issues applied to the entire class, they could not be proved on a classwide basis.” Leasing Defendants argue this individual issue predominates over any common issues.

The district court properly identified several common questions and determined they predominate in Plaintiffs’ RICO claim. These questions include the propriety of Leasing Defendants’ simulation to determine whether taxes were due, whether class members’ ACH form agreements authorized the deductions after their leases had expired, and whether ACH processors relied on fraudulent misrepresentations by Leasing Defendants when they processed the debits. These issues are “of such a nature that [they are] capable of classwide resolution.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350, 131 S.Ct. 2541. Although there are individualized issues related to Campbell’s injury, common questions exist and predominate for the alleged RICO violation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in so concluding.

B. The Property Tax Equipment Class

Leasing Defendants also appeal the district court’s certification of the Property Tax Equipment Class — the class of persons and businesses who paid property taxes based on the Acquisition Cost rather than the Equipment Cost. Leasing Defendants'argue that Plaintiffs did not establish commonality, predominance, or superiority.

1. Commonality and Predominance

In certifying the Property Tax Equipment Cost Class, the district court identified the following common questions that predominate: whether Leasing Defendants’ use of the Acquisition Cost to calculate taxes was improper, whether Leasing Defendants had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs to calculate their taxes properly when they assumed the duty to assess and pay taxes on Plaintiffs’ behalf, and whether Leasing Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by using the Acquisition Cost to calculate taxes.

Leasing Defendants argue that the district court incorrectly assumed that the Acquisition Cost is an “inflated figure,” and this assumption has no factual support in the record. We disagree that this argument is pertinent at this stage. Plaintiffs have alleged that the Acquisition Cost amounted to thousands of dollars for a piece of equipment only worth a few hundred dollars, and that Leasing Defendants assessed property taxes on the total commission paid to the ISO rather than the true equipment cost. In their motion for class certification, Plaintiffs gave examples from two class members seeking to represent the Property Tax Equipment Class: Plaintiff Just Film’s Acquisition Cost was listed at $5,429.19 and Plaintiff Dietz Towing at $3,686. The Equipment Cost was listed at $358. Plaintiffs stress that the “difference between the two tax bases is significant” and that by switching from the Acquisition Cost to the Equipment Cost as the tax base, the property tax liability lowered significantly. Plaintiffs also offered the deposition testimony of Defendant Northern Leasing’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness who conceded that using the Acquisition Cost was a mistake, and that Defendants should have used Equipment Cost as the tax base. The witness also stated that by switching from the Acquisition Cost to the Equipment Cost, the property tax liability would be “much less.” Plaintiffs’ position in this regard may or may not prevail, but that is a merits question not appropriately addressed at the class certification stage. See Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1191, 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013) (“Rule 23(b)(3) requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.”); Stockwell v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 749 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that “demonstrating commonality does not require proof that the putative class will prevail on whatever common questions it identifies”).

Next, Leasing Defendants argue that Plaintiffs presented no evidence regarding the variation in tax rates, and that because of the variation, certifying a national class is inappropriate. Leasing Defendants misconstrue Plaintiffs’ legal theory for their breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants MBF Leasing and Northern Leasing breached their contracts by using the Acquisition Cost instead of the Equipment Cost to assess property taxes and charging those assessment amounts to the class. As the district court reasoned, no matter the tax rate in the various jurisdictions, using the Acquisition Cost would amount to an incorrect tax assessment. Whether Leasing Defendants’ conduct breached any contractual obligation turns on whether use of the Acquisition Cost, rather than the Equipment Cost, was improper under the contract. Because interpretation of the leasing contracts would predominate, the district court did not err in finding that Plaintiffs established commonality and predominance as to the Property Tax Equipment Class Lease.

Leasing Defendants also argue that determining whether it was improper to calculate property taxes using the Acquisition Cost requires one to assemble the laws of 3,500 taxing jurisdictions. But Plaintiffs do not argue that using the Acquisition Cost is wrong based on the laws of each taxing jurisdiction. Rather, they contend that Leasing Defendants breached their contracts by choosing to calculate taxes using the Acquisition Cost, rather than the Equipment Cost, as the base.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that common questions — including whether Leasing Defendants’ use of the Acquisition Cost to calculate property taxes breached the parties’ lease contracts — predominate.

2. Superiority

In addition to establishing predominance of a common question, a class proponent must also demonstrate that the class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); see Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1235 (9th Cir. 1996).

Leasing Defendants argue that Plaintiffs did not establish superiority because the number of taxing jurisdictions involved in this case makes adjudication unmanageable. Again, Leasing Defendants’ argument manufactures a manageability issue that does not exist. The factfinder will determine as a matter of contract whether Leasing Defendants improperly calculated property taxes using the Acquisition Cost. Calculating the differences in the taxed amounts between the Acquisition Cost and the Equipment Cost, as it pertains to measuring damages, would then require applying the laws of the various taxing jurisdictions.

The district court did not err in determining that Plaintiffs satisfied the superiority requirement. If a class action is not superior, then individual actions must carry the day. The court concluded that the “risks, small recovery, and relatively high costs of litigation” make it unlikely that plaintiffs would individually pursue their claims. These considerations are at the heart of why the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow class actions in cases where Rule 23’s requirements are satisfied. This case vividly points to the need for class treatment. The individual damages of each merchant are too small to make litigation cost effective in a case against funded defenses and with a likely need for expert testimony. The district court also found that class action was superior because litigation on a classwide basis would promote greater efficiency in resolving the classes’ claims. See Valentino, 97 F.3d at 1234.

IY

The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the SKS Post-Lease Expiration Class and the Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class. We affirm the district court’s class certification orders.

AFFIRMED.

      . The three non-certified classes — the "Excessive Lease Amount Subclass,” the "Property Tax Fee Non-Disclosure Class,” and the "Credit Monitoring Class” — are not at issue on appeal.

      . In Lozano, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of California customers who were charged for calls made in a different billing period than the billing period in which the calls were made. Id. at 721-22. The plaintiff was charged an overage fee and received a one-time reimbursement after complaining about the fee. Id. at 722. The phone carrier defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claimed damages of reserving minutes, where a certain number of minutes were saved to compensate for late-charged calls from the previous billing cycle, was unique. Id. at 734. Although some customers were charged overage fees and other customers reserved their minutes, this court affirmed the district court’s finding that the plaintiff’s injuries were typical of the class. Id. A plaintiff who reserved his minutes had a typical claim as the class, which included customers charged an overage fee and customers who reserved their minutes. Id.

      . Other common questions exist in this action. To prove Leasing Defendants committed a RICO violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Plaintiffs will need to show: (1) Leasing Defendants are persons as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3); (2) Leasing Defendants conducted or participated in the complained of conduct; (3) Leasing Defendants participation in the conduct is part of an enterprise as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4); and (4) Leasing Defendants participation in the enterprise was performed through a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). These issues are appropriate for classwide litigation because they focus on Leasing Defendants’ conduct. Whether Leasing Defendants were part of an enterprise operating an alleged scheme to defraud class members can be resolved on a classwide basis. See, e.g., Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co., 312 F.R.D. 528, 541 (N.D. Cal. 2015); In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Investments Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 251, 255 (C.D. Cal. 1988).

      . Both parties discuss whether use of the Acquisition Cost as the tax basis breached contractual obligations and whether use of this tax base was arbitrary or irrational under New York law. These discussions, however, encompass the merits of Plaintiffs' claim, which we decline to address as it is not relevant to determining whether Plaintiffs met the requirements for class certification. See Amgen, 133 S.Ct. at 1194-95 ("Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions may be considered to the extent — but only to the extent — that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.”).