and at Defendants made a knowingly false certification of compliance with a statute or regulation. The summary judgment record does not establish that based upon any of the Defendants’ acts, Defendants impliedly certified compliance. Therefore, this claim fails from the beginning. See Southland Mgmt. Corp., 288 F.3d at 679. However, even if the first element had been met, the claim would still fail. The crucial question is whether the certification of compliance with a particular regulation or statute was a condition for payment by the government. See id.; see also Thompson, 125 F.3d at 902-OS. Relator presents nothing establishing that Defendants made a false certification of compliance, either implied or express, as a condition of payment. See Thompson, 125 F.3d at 902-03. (<HOLDING>). Therefore, there is no genuine issue of
recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability recognizing that while not all breaches of contract or regulatory violations automatically give rise to liability under the fca the false certification of compliance  creates liability when certification is a prerequisite to obtaining a government benefit holding no liability under false claims act unless certification prerequisite to payment holding implied false certifications must be material to the governments payment decision in order to be actionable under the false claims act holding that proof of racketeering was not a separate prerequisite to criminal liability under the hobbs act