a court should defer resolution of a False Claims Act case pending an agency’s determination of one or more issues in the case have rejected it.’ ” Id. at 354 n. 60 (quoting Claire M. Sylvia, The False Claims Act-Fraud Against the Government § 10:13, at 474 (2004)). See, e.g., United States ex rel. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 38 v. Roen Constr. Co., 183 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir.1999) (“[A] false certification that workers have been paid at the legally required wage rate may give rise to liability under the FCA. If, as the Plumbers allege, [the defendant] submitted such false certifications, it may be liable under the False Claims Act.”); United States ex rel. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 342 v. Dan Caputo Co., 152 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Gabelli, 345 F.Supp.2d at 354-57 (concluding
holding that the employees of government contractors do not have a cause of action for back pay against employers who violate the davisbacon act holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment holding the same with respect to an apartment holding that a contractors employees were not within the scope and course of their employment when they deviated from their work to shoot at squirrels holding in fca suit regarding contractors classification of employees for purposes of the davisbacon act that deferral to the department of labor was proper only with respect to the resolution of how particular types of work should be classified but not with respect to whether the contractors misclassified their employees