[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10963 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ex Rel., Plaintiff, BRUCE JACOBS, Relator, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellee. USCA11 Case: 22-10963 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 2 of 16

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10963

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-20543-AMC ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. BRASHER, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to enforce the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar. The FCA’s public disclosure bar provides that a “court shall dismiss an [FCA] action or claim . . . if substantially the same allegations . . . as alleged in the action or claim were pub- licly disclosed . . . from the news media.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). This prohibition does not apply if “the action is brought by the At- torney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” Id. The district court dismissed Bruce Jacobs’s qui tam action against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It did so for two reasons. First, it concluded that his amended complaint did not plead fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Second, it con- cluded that the gravamen of his fraud claims had already been dis- closed on three blogs and that he was not an original source of that information. We need not address Rule 9 because, even if Jacobs pleaded fraud with sufficient particularity, we agree with the USCA11 Case: 22-10963 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 3 of 16

22-10963 Opinion of the Court 3

district court that the FCA’s public disclosure bar independently forecloses this lawsuit. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dis- missal of Jacobs’s amended complaint. I.

Bruce Jacobs, a Florida foreclosure attorney, brought this qui tam action against JP Morgan Chase on behalf of the United States. Jacobs alleges that JP Morgan Chase violated the False Claims Act by forging mortgage loan promissory notes and submitting false reimbursement claims to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, govern- ment-sponsored enterprises, for loan servicing costs. JP Morgan Chase acquired these promissory notes from Washington Mutual in 2008 after it had collapsed and the FDIC had placed it into re- ceivership. Washington Mutual had previously sold the loans it originated to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and JP Morgan Chase became Washington Mutual’s successor-in-interest and the new servicer of these loans. Jacobs alleges that Washington Mutual forgot to endorse every loan it originated, a violation of federal guidelines, which if discovered would have required it and its successor-in-interest JP Morgan Chas