DEANA L. ZELENKA, In the Name of the United States of America Pursuant to the False… v. Nfi Industries, Inc.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-3650
DEANA L. ZELENKA,
In the Name of the United States of
America Pursuant to the False Claims
Act 31 U.S.C. Section 3730
Appellant
v.
NFI INDUSTRIES, INC.;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-00584)
District Judge: The Honorable Joseph E. Irenas
Argued: November 28, 2007
Before: BARRY, FUENTES and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 15, 2008)
Ross Begelman, Esq. (Argued)
Begelman & Orlow, P.C.
411 Route 70 East, Suite 245
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Counsel for Appellant Deana L. Zelenka, etc.
Steven I. Frank, Esq. (Argued)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Appellate Staff
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
-AND-
Stuart A. Minkowitz, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Room 700
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Amicus-Appellant - USA
Justin Loughry, Esq. (Argued)
Lawrence W. Lindsay, Esq.
Loughry & Lindsay
330 Market Street
Camden, NJ 08102
Counsel for Appellee NFL Industries, Inc., et al
Kali Bracey, Esq. (Argued)
Julie M. Carpenter, Esq.
Jenner & Block
601 13th Street, N.W.
Suite 1200 South
Washington, DC 20005
-AND-
Peter J. Torcicollo, Esq.
Gibbons
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102-5310
Counsel for Honeywell International, Inc.

-- 2 of 3 --

1 We do not decide whether, as the District Court appeared to assume, inspection fees
have been and will be required.
3
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Deana L. Zelenka appeals the July 6, 2006 order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey granting the motions to dismiss of appellees NFI Industries,
Inc. and Honeywell International, Inc. Appellant raises two issues on appeal:
“1. Whether the lower court erred in granting the motion[s] to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) by misapplying the limited facts and competent
evidence offered below in concluding plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a
legal obligation that is clearly related to inspection fees and dismissed
plaintiff’s claim.
2. Whether the lower court erred in finding that plaintiff’s
complaint did not state a cause of action by failing to properly allege that an
obligation had been avoided or decreased under the false claims act 31
U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7).”
Appellant’s Br. at 1.
We have reviewed the submissions of the parties and have heard oral argument.
We conclude that, substantially for the reasons set forth in the Opinion of the District
Court, we will affirm.1

-- 3 of 3 --