U.S. ex rel. Gregory Lynn v. City of Detroit, Mich.

── U.S. ex rel. Gregory Lynn v. City of Detroit, Mich. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: April 10, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0161n.06 No. 25-1537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Apr 10, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. ) ) GREGORY LYNN and PAULETTE HAMILTON, ) Relators-Appellants, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, ) Defendant-Appellee. ) OPINION ) Before: BOGGS, SILER, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This case is a qui tam action brought against the City of Detroit by relators Gregory Lynn and Paulette Hamilton on behalf of the United States, which declined to intervene pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B). Plaintiffs filed suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), alleging that the City “knowingly present[ed], or cause[d] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government, based on the City’s annual Certifications and Assurances with regard to funding from the Federal Transit Administration. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, holding that the Certifications and Assurances were forward-looking promises and therefore could not support a claim for fraud. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend their complaint or, in the alternative, that their operative complaint actually stated two No. 25-1537, United States ex rel. Lynn v. City of Detroit claims, not just one. They also argue that the district court erred in its construction of the language of the Certifications and Assurances on which Plaintiffs base their fraud claim. For the reasons below, we affirm the judgment of the district court in its entirety. BACKGROUND Relators Gregory Lynn and Paulette Hamilton are the principals of Enjoi Transportation, which previously provided paratransit services to the City of Detroit (“the City”), both directly and as a subcontractor to other companies, including Transdev Services, Inc. (“Transdev”). The City is a Michigan municipal corporation located in Wayne County, Michigan. Among other departments and divisions, the City operated a Department of Transportation (“DDOT”). As a grantee of the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”), the City receives federal funds, and the City and its DDOT are responsible for managing the City’s programs and for complying with federal statutory and administrative requirements. To receive federal funds from the FTA, the City signed annual Certifications and Assurances for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Certifications and Assurances state that the City “agrees to comply” with federal laws, regulations, and requirements, and to follow applicable federal guidance. On April 16, 2015, the City issued a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) for paratransit services. This contract, Contract 2916016, involved no funding from the federal government. In 2015, before Transdev responded to the RFP, Transdev employee Richard Alexander called DDOT Director D