Response in Opposition to Motion, United States ex rel. John Cobb v. Charleston County School District, No. 2:25-cv-08752 (D.S.C.), Doc. 25 (August 24, 2026)

Summary

Plaintiff-Relator John Cobb's memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in United States ex rel. John Cobb v. Charleston County School District, Case No. 2:25-CV-08752-DCN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, dated August 24, 2026 (Doc. 25). It states that the action is brought under the False Claims Act to recover funds from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund ("ESSER") and CARES Act, alleging misuse of at least three million dollars ($3,000,000.00). It describes three projects named D23SP, D20PCP and D4NC and argues that the Amended Complaint pleads the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud. It asks that the motion to dismiss be denied.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                                  CHARLESTON DIVISON


  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.,                  CASE NO.: 2:25-CV-08752-DCN
  JOHN COBB

                         Plaintiff-Relator,           PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN
                                                      OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
  vs.                                                 MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
                                                      COMPLAINT
  COLLETON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

                       Defendant.

        The Plaintiff-Relator, John Cobb, respectfully submits this memorandum in response to

Defendant Charleston County School District’s (“Charleston County or CCSD”) Motion to

Dismiss Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 24). For the reasons set forth

below and those that may be advanced at oral arguments, Plaintiff would respectfully request that

this court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

        This matter is brought by Relator John Cobb pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”) to

recover monies illegally obtained by Charleston County from the Elementary and Secondary

School Emergency Relief Fund (“ESSER”) and CARES Act without following proper protocols,

improperly designating contracts as sole source, non-competitive bid process, improperly vetting

consultants, unusually large and inappropriate payments to unqualified consultants and

contractors, and without using the funds for their intended and represented purposes leading to the

submission of false or fraudulent claims to the government and misuse of at least three million

dollars ($3,000,000.00) in ESSER and CARES act funds.

        On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit under seal, on behalf of the United States of America


                                                 1
against Defendant Charleston County School District alleging violations of the False Claims Act.

(ECF No. 1). On December 17, 2025, the United States notified the Court of its decision to decline

to intervene in this action. (ECF No. 10). Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), Relator maintained

the action in the name of the government. On December 18, 2025, the Court issued an order

unsealing the matter. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff served the Complaint upon Defendant and Charleston

County filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16). On June 26, 2026, the Court issued an Order

granting CCSD’s motion to dismiss Relator’s WPA claim, denying CCSD’s motion to dismiss

Relator's FCA claim, and granting CCSD’s motion for a more definite statement as to Relator’s

FCA claim. (ECF No. 22). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 27, 2026

(ECF No. 23) and Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 10, 2026. (ECF No. 24).

                                          STANDARD OF REVIEW

        When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted under Rule 12(b)(6), the court “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the

plaintiff”. Evans v. United States, 105 F.4th 606 (4th Cir. 2024). (Citing Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d

222 (4th Cir. 2020)). Dismissal is only appropriate where a complaint does not “contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). (Citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). Thus, “a claim has facial plausibility when

the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

liable for the misconduct alleged”. Id.

        Rule 9(b) requires “that claimants plead fraud with particularity.” Harrison v. Westinghouse

Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999). Courts “should hesitate to dismiss a complaint

under Rule 9(b) if the court is satisfied (1) that the defendant has been made aware of the particular



                                                   2
circumstances for which she will have to prepare a defense at trial, and (2) that plaintiff has

substantial prediscovery evidence of those facts.” Id. A complaint need not “make a case” or

“forecast evidence sufficient to prove an element,” rather, the sufficiency of a complaint depends

on “whether the document's allegations are detailed and informative enough to enable the

defendant to respond.” Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342 (4th Cir.2005) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted).

                                          ANALYSIS

       Despite Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint suffices the pleading

requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b), “connects the dots”, and

alleges a valid cause of action; CCSD knowingly presented false or fraudulent claims for payment

to the government. The Amended Complaint alleges that CCSD intentionally and deliberately

submitted false or fraudulent claims to the federal government for payment, specifically

concerning the following projects: District 23 St. Paul’s (“D23SP”), District 20 Principal

Collaborative Program (“D20PCP”), and District 4 North Charleston (“D4NC”).

       The first project, D23SP, Charleston County awarded the contract to a single vendor, Victor

C. Young (“Young”) managing director of VCY Stratagem, LLC without going through the

ordinary protocols and bidding process. CCSD improperly designated it as a sole source contract

without putting the position out for bid, as appropriate under the program rules. CCSD knowingly

submitted false or fraudulent claims concerning the D23SP project to the SC Department of

Education for reimbursement of ESSER funds knowing Young was improperly hired and

contracted under the program rules and regulations. Additionally, Charleston Stage was improperly

presented as a sole source contract and did not follow the proper competitive bidding process.

Charleston County knowingly submitted false or fraudulent claims regarding the D23SP-



                                                3
Charleston Stage project to the SC Department of Education for reimbursement of ESSER funds

knowing the project was an improper use of ESSER funds and did not qualify under the program

rules and regulations. Young and the Charleston Stage project received improper government funds

paid out of an ESSER-3 218 account/fund.

       The second project, D20PCP, CCSD entered into a contract with Barbara Dilligard

(“Dilligard”) president of Karaton Services, LLC without the competitive bid process, paying an

inappropriately high salary for consultant services. As a result, CCSD knowingly presented false

or fraudulent claims to the SC Department of Education for reimbursement of ESSER/CARES

funds with the knowledge that it was an improper use of funds and did not qualify for

ESSER/CARES funding under the program rules and regulations.

       The third project, D4NC, Charleston County knowingly submitted false or fraudulent

claims regarding the construction of an athletic field. Despite knowing that renovations,

remodeling and construction of athletic fields was not an allowable use of ESSER/Cares funds,

Anita Huggins (“Huggins”) submitted claims to the SC Department of Education for

reimbursement of ESSER/Cares funding.

       Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to allege the “who, what, when, where, and how” of

the fraud, as well as submission of a specific false or fraudulent claim that resulted in the

government’s payment of money to CCSD. The False Claims Act provides that “any person who…

knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or

approval…or…knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement

material to a false or fraudulent claim…is liable to the United States Government.” 31 U.S.C. §

3729(a)(1)(A)&(B).




                                               4
       At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Relator is not required to plead the case with “perfect”

precision or to prove each element with supporting documents. Defendant’s motion insists that the

Amended Complaint must “connect the dots” between the alleged misconduct and government

payment through identification of specific payments, which are details that are primarily within

CCSD’s possession and control. The Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads the “who, what,

when, where, and how” to give Defendant fair notice of the claims. Any additional specific

evidence Defendant seeks—down to each reimbursement submission and supporting invoice—is

appropriately tested in discovery, not used to impose a heightened “perfect pleading” standard on

an FCA relator at this early stage.

       The Amended Complaint alleges Charleston County and Superintendent Huggins

negotiated, directed, approved, and/or improperly submitted reimbursement paperwork and

invoices to the South Carolina Department of Education for ESSER/CARES funds. The Amended

Complaint also identifies key consultants including Young and Dilligard as improper contractors

who did not go through the proper bidding process. The Amended Complaint identifies the alleged

false statements and submissions: certifications on CCSD’s ESSER/CARES Expenditure Reports

which certify that 1) expenditures were incurred and paid in accordance with applicable

requirements, 2) were not duplicative, and 3) that supporting invoices/documentation were

maintained and available for audit—and alleges those certifications were false or fraudulent as to

the expenditures for the projects described.

       The Amended Complaint further specifies the procurement defects, including negotiating

vendor arrangements without competitive bidding process and improper designated sole-source

contracts with untrue noncompetitive justifications. The Amended Complaint pleads specific dates

tied to the challenged conduct, including that Cobb flagged D23SP procurement issues as early as



                                                5
November 2, 2022; noncompetitive procurement justification activity occurred on or about

October 6, 2023; Cobb raised vendor/contract concerns on or about November 29, 2023; Cobb

denied the D4NC athletic field upgrade on October 26, 2023 and included correspondence from

the SC Department of Education stating why the athletic field was not an allowable use of funds.

       Relator also alleges that CCSD’s procurement decisions were the “cause,” and the

reimbursements were the “effect.” CCSD allegedly negotiated and treated the D23SP, D20PCP,

and D4NC projects as noncompetitive/sole-source without proper justification, when there were

other contractors who could complete the work and the project should have been put out for bid.

Charleston County then sought ESSER/CARES reimbursement by submitting Expenditure

Reports to SCDE that certified compliance. For example: (1) for D23SP, CCSD chose Victor C.

Young/VCY Stratagem without competitive bidding, treated the engagement as sole source, and

that Huggins negotiated the contract and approved/submitted improper invoices to SCDE for

ESSER reimbursement; (2) for D20PCP, a $200,000 consultant payment to Barbara

Dilligard/Karaton Services was procured without the required competition and was positioned for

ESSER reimbursement under certifications of compliance; and (3) for D4NC, Cobb denied the

athletic field project as unallowable and noncompliant, yet Huggins nevertheless contacted SCDE

and pursued ESSER funding for the project. The Amended Complaint alleges that, when Cobb

denied Charleston Stage and D4NC as not qualifying as sole-source procurements, Huggins

continued to contact SCDE asserting the projects were sole source and qualified for ESSER

funding, including pleading that CCSD funded part of Charleston Stage from operating funds and

sought the remainder through ESSER reimbursement.

        Plaintiff satisfies the pleading standard and alleges the “who, what, when, where, and how

of the alleged fraud.” Wheeler, 127 F.4th at 485 (4th Cir. 2025). The Amended Complaint alleges



                                                6
the time, place and contacts of the false representations and identity of the person(s) making the

misrepresentation(s) and what Defendant received as result thereof. See U.S. ex rel. Nathan v.

Takeda Pharms. N. Am., Inc., 707 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013) (“a plaintiff asserting a claim under

the Act must, at a minimum, describe the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as

well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby”).

       While employed by Charleston County as an executive director of federal programs from

2022 through his termination in 2024, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges John Cobb obtained

direct personal knowledge of the factual allegations, on several instances, Defendant knowingly

presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent claim to the government for payment of

ESSER funds. Thus, the Amended Complaint alleges a valid cause of action, including detailed

allegations of false or fraudulent claims submitted to the government by Charleston County School

District for payment of ESSER funds.

                                        CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons as well as any which may be advanced upon any hearing held

hereon, Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

should be denied.




                               [SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]




                                                7
                             Respectfully submitted by:

                             By: s/Michael A. Monastra
                             Gedney M. Howe, IV (Federal Bar No. 13339)
                             Michael A. Monastra (Federal Bar No. 13587)
                             GEDNEY M. HOWE, IV, LLC
                             PO Box 1034
                             Charleston, SC 29402
                             Phone: 843-722-8048
                             Fax: 843-722-2140
                             Email: Gedney4@gedneyhowe.com
                             Email: Mmonastra@gedneyhowe.com

                             -and-

                             Vanisha Siler Brown (Federal Bar No. 13425)
                             Siler Law Firm
                             1318N. Main Street #1353
                             Summerville, SC 29483
                             Phone: 843-887-8877
                             Mobile: 843-467-9869
                             Fax: 843-564-0556
                             attorney@thesilerfirm.com

                             ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF- RELATOR
                             JOHN COBB

August 24, 2026
Charleston, South Carolina




                                8


File and source

File

25-response-in-opposition-to-motion.pdf

Size

152,436 bytes

SHA-256

8eb97dbfb80635d8d1f17339c1f3b796014407dd27979ad33cfe6731d815b4e3

Our copy

25-response-in-opposition-to-motion.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com