the Government from “bringpng] a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5). To determine whether the fírst-to-file bar applies, the Fourth Circuit has adopted the “same material elements” test. Carter, 710 F.3d at 182-83 (joining the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits). Applying this test, a later-filed action is not based on the facts of a pending action when it identifies a new defendant who is not a subsidiary of an already-named defendant. See In re Nat. Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litig. (CO2 Appeals), 566 F.3d 956, 962 (10th Cir. 2009) (“The identity of a defendant constitutes a material element of a fraud claim.... ”); see also U.S. ex rel. Hampton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 318 F.3d 214, 218-19 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, because the Lutz-Webster Complaint
holding that firsttofile bar applied to when primary difference was named subsidiaries holding that the named insured was using an automobile when changing its tire holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that exception applied where bar counsel was subject to adverse discovery order and another professional conduct board hearing panel had directed a similar order to bar counsel in another matter holding that factual issues essential to determining whether state law bar applied should be submitted to a jury