claim under the FCA must allege “that ‘(1) the defendant submitted a claim to the government, (2) the claim was false, and (3) the defendant knew the claim was false.’ ” United States ex rel. Tran v. Computer Scis. Corp., 53 F.Supp.3d 104, 121-22 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting United States ex rel. Head v. Ka LLC, Civ. A. No. 11-20155, 2012 WL 3759015, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2012) (“[A] landlord commits fraud when that landlord endorses or presents for payment housing assistance payment checks while knowingly receiving additional payments in excess of that approved[.]”). Nor is there any doubt that the amount of rent he charged is,a “material” term of the Program. Cf. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Julio Escobar, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1989, 1996, 195 L.Ed.2d 348 (2016) (<HOLDING>). The Program exists “[f]or the purpose of
holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments holding that the offense requires that the return be false as to a material matter holding implied false certifications must be material to the governments payment decision in order to be actionable under the false claims act holding no liability under false claims act unless certification prerequisite to payment holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act