Jacob D. Mahle
Education
- University of Cincinnati College of Law, J.D., 2006, summa cum laude, Order of the Coif
University of Cincinnati Law Review, associate member, 2004-2005, Articles Editor, 2005-2006 - Xavier University, B.A., 2000, summa cum laude
Bar & Court Admissions
Jake is a partner in the Cincinnati office and a member of the litigation group. Jake’s practice focuses on counseling publicly- and privately-held clients in difficult situations, including (when necessary) complex commercial litigation. Jake’s primary focus is in counseling and representing entities faced with regulatory actions and governmental investigations, including health care providers, hospitals, and physicians facing claims under the False Claims Act, the Stark Law, and the Anti-Kickback Statute; in fiduciary disputes, including shareholder derivative actions and corporate governance issues; and in counseling clients regarding privacy, data compliance issues, incident response planning, and data breach litigation.
Jake’s notable experience includes:
- Counseling clients regarding regulatory issues involving the FDA, USDA, HUD, HHS, and CMS
- Successfully representing clients in regulatory and investigative actions brought by the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Representing a large, closely-held food manufacturer in claims for breach of fiduciary duty
- Obtaining dismissal of minority shareholder oppression and fiduciary duty claims in a closely-held corporation
- Conducting independent investigations for clients regarding regulatory compliance and potential litigation
- Obtaining judgment on fiduciary claims seeking to recover $800 million dollars from a corporate trustee
- Obtaining trial verdicts in excess of $1 million
- Representing retail and banking clients in a variety of data breach litigation
- Representing multiple defendants in multi-district patent litigation spanning 200 defendants and more than 50 patents
Jake is a member of the Cincinnati Bar Association, where he has previously served as chair of the Admissions Committee. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Hamilton County Democratic Party. He has served on the Board of Trustees of the University of Cincinnati Law Alumni Association since 2009.
Jake received his B.A. summa cum laude from Xavier University. He received his J.D. summa cum laude from the University of Cincinnati College of Law, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif, as well as an associate member and articles editor for the University of Cincinnati Law Review.
Professional and Community Activities
- University of Cincinnati College of Law Alumni Association, Board of Trustees, Member
Honors & Awards
- Ohio Super Lawyers Rising Stars, Appellate, 2009-2010; Business Litigation, 2011-2013, 2015-2018
- Leo J. Breslin Memorial Scholarship, 2003-2004
Insights
- 4/8/2019In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) can still dismiss a qui tam filed under the False Claims Act even after it has declined to intervene in the case.
- 1/30/2018Although the government has always had the authority to move to dismiss relator cases, it almost never does, to the great frustration of numerous defendants that have had to incur the costs and inconvenience of meritless False Claims Act (FCA) claims.
- 1/12/2018In February 2017, a jury in the Middle District of Florida found for a relator in an upcoding case against a nursing home operator, resulting in a total judgment of approximately $350 million.
- 10/2/2017On September 29, 2017, the Fifth Circuit overturned a $664 million False Claims Act (FCA) judgment in U.S. ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc, Case No. 15-41172 (5th Cir). The court’s reasoning offers substantial ammunition to FCA defendants, and further demonstrates that courts really will enforce the strict materiality requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel., Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989, 1995 (2016).
- 5/2/2017On May 1, 2017, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a False Claims Act (FCA) case in which the eelator had asserted that Genentech concealed information about side effects of its cancer drug, Avastin. U.S. ex rel. Petratos, v. Genentech Inc., et al., Case No. 15-3805 (3rd Cir. May 1, 2017).
- 12/19/2016On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their second unanimous interpretation of the contours of the False Claims Act (FCA) in the last six months.
- 6/16/2016On Thursday, June 16, 2016 the United States Supreme Court released its decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar (No. 15-7). In Escobar—argued on April 19, 2016—the Court decided the legal validity of the “implied certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act (FCA).
- 4/22/2016On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar.
- 2/11/2016On February 11, 2016, Medicare regulators issued a final rule that relaxes the obligations for doctors and hospitals to report and return Medicare overpayments (RIN 0938-AQ58, CMS-6037-F).
- 8/12/2015On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released a decision upholding an assertion of privilege by Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc. (KBR) over internal investigation documents in a FCA suit alleging kickbacks and overbilling on Iraq war subcontracts.
- 7/20/2015The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11643 (9th. Cir. July 7, 2015), overruled existing Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the requirements for meeting the public disclosure rule’s original source exception, weakening the public disclosure bar in the Ninth Circuit and opening the door for increased qui tam activity within that jurisdiction.
- 5/26/2015Last month, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed the fair market value (FMV) standard as the primary measure of damages in False Claims Act (FCA) cases—and demonstrated the teeth of that requirement when evidence (including expert testimony) is not presented to support an FMV determination. United States v. United Technologies Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5476 (6th Cir. April 6, 2015), represented the culmination of a decades-long dispute between the government and United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney unit over pricing for engines supplied to the Air Force for use in its F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
- 5/26/2015Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. On the first question presented, the Court held that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) applies only to criminal offenses and thus does not toll the False Claims Act’s (FCA) statute of limitations indefinitely while the United States is in armed conflict.
- 2/12/2015Courts continue to whittle away at the public disclosure bar, historically one of the best ways to dispose of parasitic qui tam lawsuits. Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling regarding the impact of the 2010 amendments to the False Claims Act’s (FCA) public disclosure rule. In its opinion in U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., the Eleventh Circuitjoined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the public disclosure rule, as amended in 2010, is no longer a jurisdictional bar to an FCA action. Instead, under the amended version of the statute, defendants now must move to dismiss allegations that have been publicly disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- 2/5/2015A recent Sixth Circuit opinion provides defendants a valuable roadmap for using government witness testimony to defeat False Claims Act (FCA) claims on materiality grounds at the summary judgment stage. In U.S. ex rel. American Systems Consulting, Inc. v. ManTech Advanced Systems Int’l Inc., Case No. 14-3269 (6th Cir.), the court rejected the relator’s argument that materiality decisions should be left to a jury. Instead, the court expressly held that “a judge may decide as a matter of law whether a misrepresentation was material under the FCA.”
- 1/14/2015On January 8, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reinstated the government’s False Claims Act (FCA) claims in United States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., No. 13-2190. In reversing the district court’s dismissal of the government’s case, the Fourth Circuit highlighted, both explicitly and implicitly, the importance of the government’s decision to intervene in the case.
- 1/9/2015Earlier this week, Judge Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia imposed significant monetary sanctions against a pair of relators who blatantly and repeatedly violated the seal order in a pending qui tam action, United States ex rel. Bibby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:06-CV-0547-AT.
- 12/5/2014According to a recent Department of Justice press release regarding annual False Claims Act (FCA) recoveries, FCA recoveries continue to skyrocket, in keeping with the trend in recent years. 2014 marks the third straight year in which the Department of Justice has announced a record-setting annual recovery.
- 10/16/2014Last week, the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Boeing in U.S. ex rel. Smith v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 05-10730MLB (D. Kan.), a False Claims Act case in which the qui tam relators effectively tried to second-guess the professional judgment of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
- 7/2/2014Last week, the D.C. Circuit provided good news to defense contractors, health care providers and all other corporate entities doing business with the government. In a forceful opinion, the court overruled a trial court decision that portended disastrous consequences for privileged internal investigations by corporate legal departments.
- 3/4/2013U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. recently granted a motion to dismiss qui tam claims from two relators who alleged that Lockheed Martin violated the False Claims Act by inflating the reported number of hours its employees worked on government contracts.