SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:

The False Claims Act (FCA) permits, in certain circumstances, suits by private parties on behalf of the United States against anyone submitting a false claim to the government. In 1986, Congress amended the FCA to include § 3730(b)(5), which provides that “[w]hen a person brings a [qui tam action], no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.” This appeal requires us to interpret § 3730(b)(5) for the first time. We hold that § 3730(b)(5) establishes an exception-free, first-to-file bar. We further hold that subsequently dismissed cases constitute pending actions under § 3730(b)(5). Finally, we hold that a “material facts,” not “identical facts,” test should be used to determine if a “related action [is] based on the facts underlying the pending action.” § 3730(b)(5). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Lu-jan’s qui tam action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 3730(b)(5).

Linda Lujan and William Schumer, former Hughes Aircraft Company employees, brought separate qui tam claims alleging that Hughes fraudulently used “commonality agreements”.1 Determining whether § 3730(b)(5) bars Lujan’s action necessarily involves reviewing Schumer’s action.

A. United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Company

In 1989, former Hughes manager William Schumer filed a qui tam action against Hughes asserting that Hughes defrauded the United States government by entering into unauthorized and illegal commonality agreements allocating project costs over more than one subcontract. The government declined to intervene.2

In May 1992, the district court found the commonality agreements proper, and granted summary judgment in favor of Hughes.

Schumer appealed and Hughes cross-appealed, arguing “that because government auditors had alleged the same misc-harging prior to Schumer’s filing, the action was barred under the ‘government knowledge’ defense, 31 U.S.C. § 3780(b)(4) (1982).” While acknowledging that the 1986 amendments eliminated the government knowledge defense,3 Hughes argued that the 1986 amendments could not be applied retroactively to Hughes pre-1986 conduct. We held that the 1986 amendments applied retroactively to Hughes’ pre-1986 conduct, affirmed the majority of the district court’s findings, and remanded two factual issues regarding pre-1986 conduct. See United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1528 (9th Cir.1995).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari4 and reversed, holding that the 1986 amendments could not be applied retroactively to pre-1986 conduct. The Court declined to review the remaining issues and held that the claims should have been dismissed, because the district court did not have jurisdiction over the pre-1986 conduct due to the government knowledge exception.5 See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952, 117 S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997).

B. United States ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Company

This is the third appeal in this case.

In February 1992, Lujan filed qui tam claims against Hughes for alleged fraud and retaliation claims for her employment termination.6 Lujan alleged that Hughes was engaging in fraudulent contracting practices by shifting costs from fixed-price programs to cost-plus programs. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), Lujan filed her claim in camera and served it on the Government. While the qui tam claim was

still under seal and before Hughes had been served with the complaint, the Los Angeles Times ran two articles reporting Lujan’s qui tam claim filing. The district court held that Lujan’s public disclosure of the existence and substance of her qui tam complaint violated the FCA’s statutory seal provision, § 3730(b)(2), and dismissed the action.

We reversed the district court. See Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (Lujan I), 67 F.3d 242, 248 (9th Cir.1995). We held that the use of dismissal as a sanction was not necessarily the appropriate remedy for Lujan’s violation. See id. at 247-48. In addition, we held sua sponte that, before the district court could reach the merits of Lujan’s claim, it would have to determine if it had jurisdiction under § 3730(e)(4)(A), which “bars suits brought after the allegations in the complaint have been publicly disclosed, unless the relator is the ‘original source’ of the information.” Id. at 248. We noted the similarities between Lujan’s complaint and the earlier filed Schumer complaint.

In March 1996, the district court found that Lujan’s allegations were “substantially similar” and therefore “based upon” those publicly disclosed in Schumer:

Therefore, the district court dismissed Lu-jan’s qui tam claims, holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case under § 3730(e)(4).

On appeal, we split Lujan’s qui tam claims into two groups: pre and post-1986 conduct. See United States ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (Lujan II), 162 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir.1998). Following Schumer, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Lujan’s qui tam pre-1986 conduct claims, because the government already had knowledge of her claims.7 See id. We reviewed the post-1986 conduct claims to determine if there was subject matter jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4). We affirmed the district court’s finding that Lujan and Schumer’s allegations were substantially similar and therefore constituted “public disclosure” of Lujan’s qui tam claims, stating:

share in some portion of its development and production costs.

Lujan II, 162 F.3d at 1032-33. We then found that Lujan was an original source because she brought her allegations to the government before Schumer’s allegations were publicly disclosed. Therefore, we reversed the district court’s dismissal of Lu-jan’s post-1986 claims, holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under § 3730(e)(4)(A)’s “original source” exception.

On remand, Hughes moved to dismiss Lujan’s qui tam action under the 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5) first-to-file jurisdictional bar. The district court determined that Lujan II had not decided the § 3730(b)(5) issue, and then found that § 3730(b)(5) applied because Sehumer was pending when Lujan filed her action. The district court reviewed (1) the prior district court findings that the allegations were substantially similar and “based upon” those publicly disclosed in Schumer’s lawsuit and (2) our Lujan II upholding of that finding. The district court found that Lujan’s claims were “based on” the same essential facts and raised the same issues as Schumer’s claims, regardless of whether the two claims incorporated somewhat different details, and held that § 3730(b)(5) barred Lujan’s case. Lujan appealed, contending that the district court improperly considered, interpreted, and applied § 3730(b)(5).

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s legal determinations. See United States v. Marbella, 73 F.3d 1508, 1515 (9th Cir.1996). Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo, and the district court’s relevant findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. See United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Servs., 163 F.3d 516, 520-21 (9th Cir.1999).

III. Analysis

We first determine whether the district court had the power to decide the § 3730(b)(5) jurisdictional challenge. Finding that the district court properly considered the issue, we then determine (1) the proper interpretation of § 3730(b)(5) and (2) if the district court properly applied § 3730(b)(5).

A. Law of the Case

Lujan contends that the law of the case doctrine precluded the district court’s consideration of Hughes’ § 3730(b)(5) jurisdictional challenge. We reject this contention.

The law of the case doctrine requires a district court to follow the appellate court’s resolution of an issue of law in all subsequent proceedings in the same case. See United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181 (9th Cir.1995). The doctrine does not apply to issues not addressed by the appellate court. See id. (quoting Luckey v. Miller, 929 F.2d 618, 621 (11th Cir.1991)). The doctrine applies to the appel

late court’s “explicit decisions as well as those issues decided by necessary implication.” Id. (quoting Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 880 F.2d 149, 157 (9th Cir.1989)).

In Lujan II, we reversed the district court’s dismissal of Lujan’s posN1986 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 3730(e)(4). While Hughes argued a § 3730(b)(5) jurisdictional challenge to this court, we did not explicitly or implicitly decide that issue. Therefore, the law of the case did not foreclose consideration of the § 3730(b)(5) jurisdiction issue. Even if we had decided the § 3730(b)(5) jurisdictional question in Lu-jan’s favor, we can correct that decision to prevent manifest injustice. See Southwest Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.2000) (“prior decision should be followed unless ... the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice”) (internal quotations omitted).

B. First-to-File Bar

Lujan next contends that § 3730(b)(5) should not bar her case because (1) her action could benefit the U.S. Treasury, (2) she was an original source, (3) she had personal knowledge of specific mischarging, and (4) she informed the government of her allegations and facts before the Schimer action. We reject each contention, holding that § 3730(b)(5) does not provide for such exceptions.

Section 3730(b)(5) provides that “[w]hen a person brings a [qui tarn action], no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.” In interpreting this provision, we “look first to the plain language of the statute, construing the provisions of the entire law, including its object and policy, to ascertain the intent of Congress.” United States v. Hockings, 129 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting Northwest Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.1996)) (internal quotations omitted). If the statute is ambiguous, we consider the legislative history. See id. “If a legislative purpose is expressed in plain and unambiguous language, ... the ... duty of the courts is to give it effect according to its terms. Exceptions to clearly delineated statutes will be implied only where essential to prevent absurd results or consequences obviously at variance with the policy of the enactment as a whole.” United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 551-52, 99 S.Ct. 2470, 61 L.Ed.2d 68 (1979) (quotations and citations omitted).

Section 3730(b)(5)’s plain language unambiguously establishes a first-to-file bar, preventing successive plaintiffs from bringing related actions based on the same underlying facts.8 Unlike § 3730(e)(4) (the public disclosure jurisdictional bar),9 § 3730(b)(5)’s plain language does not contain exceptions. Moreover, an exception-free, first-to-file bar conforms with the dual purposes of the 1986 amendments: to promote incentives for whistle-blowing insiders and prevent opportunistic successive plaintiffs. See, e.g., United States ex rel. LaCorte v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab., Inc., 149 F.3d 227, 233-34 (3d Cir.1998) (discussing legislative history). The first-filed claim provides the government notice of the essential facts of an alleged fraud, while the first-to-file bar stops repetitive claims. We reject Lujan’s contentions because they would require this court to read exceptions into thé statute’s plain language.10

C. Pending- Action

Lujan argues that because Schumer’s action was dismissed it cannot be a “pending” action under § 3730(b)(5).11 Following § 3730(b)(5)’s plain language, Lujan’s action is barred if she brought the claim while Schumer was pending. Schumer brought his action in 1989; Lujan brought her action in 1992. Even assuming that Schumer’s whole action was dismissed in 1997, five years after Lujan filed her complaint, Schumer’s action should still be considered a “pending” action for purposes of § 3730(b)(5) because Schumer’s action was pending when Lujan brought her claim. To hold that a later dismissed action was not a then-pending action would be contrary to the plain language of the statute and the legislative intent. See Rutherford, 442 U.S. at 551-52, 99 S.Ct. 2470. Dismissed or not, Schumer’s action promptly alerted the government to the essential facts of a fraudulent scheme-thereby fulfilling a goal behind the first-to-file rule. Accordingly, we reject Lujan’s argument and hold that Schumer was a “pending action” under § 3730(b)(5).

D. Material Facts Test

We must determine if Lujan is a “related action based on the facts underlying the pending action [Schumer § 3730(b)(5). Relying on a single sentence from the Senate Judiciary Report,12 Lujan contends that we should use an identical, not material facts, test. We reject this contention.

Most of the few courts that have addressed § 3730(b)(5) have rejected an identical facts test. The cases’ common principle is that “section 3730(b)(5) precludes a subsequent relator’s claim that alleges the defendant engaged in the same type of wrongdoing as that claimed in a prior action even if the allegations cover a different time period or location within a company.” United States ex rel. Capella v. United Technologies Corp., 1999 WL 464536, at *9 (D.Conn. June 3, 1999) (summarizing the tests used by other courts).13

The Third Circuit, the only appellate court to discuss and apply § 3730(b)(5), rejected an identical facts test. See LaCorte, 149 F.3d at 233-34. We find the Third Circuit’s reasoning persuasive.

Section 3730(b)(5)’s plain language refers to “related” not “identical” actions. Therefore, we need not review the legislative history. See Hookings, 129 F.3d at 1071. Even if the language were considered ambiguous, the single sentence from the legislative history does not compel a different result. Furthermore, an identical facts test would defeat the congressional objectives for the 1986 amendments: “adequate incentives for whistle-blowing insiders with genuinely valuable information and discouragement of opportunistic plaintiffs who have no significant information to contribute of their own.” United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 649 (D.C.Cir.1994). Limiting § 3730(b)(5) to only bar actions with identical facts would be contrary to the plain language and legislative intent: (1) using a narrow jurisdictional bar, such as an identical facts test, would decrease incentives to promptly bring qui tam actions; (2) multiple relators would expect a recovery for the same conduct, thereby decreasing the total amount each relator would potentially receive and incentives to bring the suit; and (3) a narrow identical facts bar would encourage piggyback claims, which would have no additional benefit for the government, “since once the government knows the essential facts of a fraudulent scheme, it has enough information to discover related frauds.” LaCorte, 149 F.3d at 234.

Therefore, we hold that § 3730(b)(5) bars later-filed actions alleging the same material elements of fraud described in an earlier suit, regardless of whether the allegations incorporate somewhat different details.

E. Related Action Based on the Facts Underlying the Pending Action

Finally, Lujan contends that the district court erred in relying on our prior § 3730(e)(4) factual determination that Lu-jan was “substantially similar” to and “based upon” Schumer to dismiss Lujan’s action under § 3730(b)(5). We reject this contention.

While the factual determinations under § 3730(e)(4) (substantially similar) may be different than those under § 3730(b)(5) (same material facts), the district court was bound by the prior factual determinations to the extent that it could not contradict them. See, e.g., United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 567-68 (9th Cir.1986) (for the law of the case doctrine to apply the issue in question must have been decided in the previous disposition). The district court reviewed the prior factual analyses and determined that the analyses demonstrated that Lujan’s claim encompassed the same material facts as Schumer’s.

Lujan also contends that the district court impermissibly equated facts with allegations, and that § 3730(b)(5) requires an analysis of Lujan and Schumer’s facts, not their allegations. We reject this contention. In motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the reviewing court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint. See Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d 1156, 1157 n. 1 (9th Cir.2001). For purposes of this inquiry, there is no difference between allegations and the underlying facts.

Given the prior factual determinations and conclusions, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Lujan’s claim was “based on” the same material facts as Schumer’s.

AFFIRMED.