the certification is a prerequisite to payment. United States v. Southland Mgmt. Corp., 288 F.3d 665, 679 (5th Cir.2002), reh’g en banc granted, 307 F.3d 352 (5th Cir.2002). The Fifth Circuit has not addressed whether it will recognize the “implied certification theory.” United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex., Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 382 (5th Cir.2003). However, as the Fifth Circuit previously recognized, under either implied or express certification theories, the certification must be a prerequisite to receive the government benefit in order to be legally false. United States ex rel. Coppock v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2003 WL 21730668, at *11 (N.D.Tex. July 22, 2003); see United States ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 125 F.3d 899, 902 (5th Cir.997)(<HOLDING>). Relator fails to establish the first element
holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding a claim under false claims act is legally false only where party affirmatively certifies compliance with statute or regulation as condition to receiving governmental payment or property holding implied false certifications must be material to the governments payment decision in order to be actionable under the false claims act holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading holding no liability under false claims act unless certification prerequisite to payment