had any reason to believe that Plaintiff was contemplating a qui tam action. See, e.g., Campion v. Northeast Utils., 598 F.Supp.2d 638, 658 (M.D.Penn.2009) (dismissing § 3730(h) claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 because a plaintiffs “merely reporting his concern about mischarging the government to his supervisor does not suffice to establish that he was acting ‘in furtherance of a qui tam action.”) Had Plaintiff shown that he had given notice of alleged billing misfeasance to his employer, he would still need to show that “his employer was aware of his protected activity. Merely grumbling to the employer about [¶]... ] regulatory violations does not satisfy the requirement.” McKenzie II, 219 F.3d at 518 (quoting United States ex rel. Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731, 740 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>)). While the notice need not explicitly
holding that the validity of releases under the federal employers liability act was a question to be determined by federal rather than state law holding an employees investigation of nothing more than his employers noncompliance with federal or state regulations does not state a whistleblower claim holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied holding that acceptance and investigation of a federal employees complaint does not constitute waiver holding that when presented with petitioners claim based upon state and federal law and the state court confined its analysis  to state law aedpa deference does not apply