at 43940. Carter resists this conclusion, based on unreasonable readings of certain statements from Carter III. WebService Employees International Union (SEIU) is a 501(c)(5) labor union representing over 2 million workers in about 100 occupations in the United States and Canada. We have previously held otherwise, see Carson, 851 F.3d at 303, and we do not attempt to revisit this Circuit's rule here. United States v. Dozier, 848 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. Careers at KBR | KBR job opportunities 2014), which held that even when [a] District Court lacks jurisdiction over a claim at the time of its original filing, a supplemental complaint may cure the defect by alleging the subsequent fact which eliminates the jurisdictional bar. Rather than resolving those questions, the majority opinion simply holds that a proposed amendment or supplement to a complaint cannot cure a first-to-file defect when the amendment or supplement does not reference the dismissal of publicly disclosed, earlier-filed related actions. Service Employees International/KBR Technical Services An FCA violator may be held responsible for treble damages in addition to civil penalties. The district court denied Relator leave to amend on grounds of futility, holding as a matter of law that a relator cannot cure a first-to-file defect by amending or supplementing his complaint after dismissal of all earlier-filed, related actions. (Docket Entry No. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (the Carter Action), No. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 2019). Because we need not do so, we decline to comment on the other reasons the district court identified as justifying its rejection of Carter's effort to circumvent dismissal through amendment. (Id. See State Farm Fire & Cas. See Carson, 851 F.3d at 30203 (A belated relator who merely adds details to a previously exposed fraud does not help reduce fraud or return funds to the federal fisc, because once the government knows the essential facts of a fraudulent scheme, it has enough information to discover related frauds. (quoting United States ex rel. Gadbois only addressed a situation where the relator sought to revise an FCA complaint with information pertaining to the related action that gave rise to the first-to-file defect. 3:2009cv00632 - Document 44 (D. Or. The basis for the above-described holding was the relevant statutory text, which imposes a restriction on the bring[ing] of an action. 31 U.S.C. The district court dismissed relator Benjamin Carter's (Relator) False Claims Act complaint against Defendant Halliburton Co., and several of its subsidiaries, on grounds that at least two related actions were pending at the time Relator filed his original complaint. The Court has consistently urged courts to avoid "a narrow, grudging interpretation of 1442(a)(1)." "Conversely, when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court." Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 198 n.15 (4th Cir. The limited record shows that the military had control over the safety and defense protocols at the Al Asad base. See id. 470, 95 L.Ed. This Court fully supports the FCA's noble goal of protecting the government's funds and property against fraud. However, the Maryland Action was dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas Action was dismissed in March 2012. The district court rejected this argument, and consequently denied Carter's proposed amendment. KBR, Inc. (NYSE:NYSE:KBR) Q1 2023 Earnings Conference Call May 1, 2023 8:30 AM ETCompany ParticipantsJamie DuBray - Investor RelationsStuart Bradie - President and WebKBR Technical Services, Inc., Overseas Administration Services, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, the "KBR defendants"), on June 8, 2009. Change the World! $ 16. 33 U.S.C. 1-1 at 5.39). Co., 853 F.3d 80, 8586 (2d Cir. 2d 669, 683 (D. Md. Rule 59(e) motions can be successful in only three situations: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. ; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense contractors and related entities that provided logistical services to the United States , 744 F.3d at 348 ; Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Fisher v. Halliburton , 667 F.3d 602, 610 (5th Cir. at 1978 (explaining that because at least one claim [may be] timely on remand, the Court must consider whether [Carter's] claims must be dismissed with prejudice under the first-to-file rule). The Defense Base Act is "liberally construed," Voris v. Eikel , 346 U.S. 328, 333, 74 S.Ct. Accordingly, the court denied Carter's motion for amendment on futility grounds. Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense (Docket Entry No. Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. & Prod. v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2169 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Carter asserts that these holdings would compel a court, sitting after the FCA's limitations period has run, to dismiss a relator's timely FCA action brought during the pendency of a then-pending, but since-dismissed, related action, and thereby expose the relator (if he or she sought to file a new complaint) to statute of limitations problems that the relator otherwise would not face. The first-to-file rule's statutory text, as explained above, plainly bars the bringing of actions while related actions are pending, and affords courts no flexibility to accommodate an improperly-filed action when its earlier-filed counterpart ceases to be pending. KBR Technical KBR Technical is a payroll company that provides payroll services to the majority of KBR-related company employees in the United States. 3730(b)(5), and therefore violated the first-to-file rule. 31 U.S.C. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). KBR Announces First Quarter 2023 Financial Results The plaintiffs allege that KBR was not a party to the LOGCAP IV contract. Unfortunately, KBR decided to ignore the unambiguous threats of retaliation levied by Iran following the death of General Qassem Soleimani. Id. That text does not purport to restrict the continuation of an FCA action while a related action is pending; rather, it restricts the bring[ing] of an FCA action while a related action is pending. WebDaily Duties at Service Employee International,Inc. , 744 F.3d at 348 ("We find the Third Circuit's analysis persuasive and adopt its formulation of the interest at play here."). at 620. Wood v. Allergan, Inc., No. In 2013, while the Supreme Court was still considering Carter's petition for certiorari, Carter refiled his complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter I), No. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. "); Ruppel , 701 F.3d at 1181 (" Acting under covers situations, like this one, where the federal government uses a private corporation to achieve an end it would have otherwise used its own agents to complete."). 88, 98 L.Ed. This procedure enables the government to investigate the matter, so that it may decide whether to take over the relator's action or to instead allow the relator to litigate the action in the government's place. This site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. 959, 103 L.Ed.2d 99 (1989). Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter V), 144 F. Supp. This Court rejected the district court's statute of limitations conclusion, reasoning that the WSLA applied to civil actions and suspended the time for filing the Carter Action. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and then affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court's decision. We hasten to add that although our holding may reduce the number of duplicative actions that can survive the FCA's limitations, this reduction should have no material effect on the Act's objective of ensuring that the government is put on notice of fraud. Because the record supports federal jurisdiction, remand is denied. Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. We may affirm on any ground apparent from the record before us. at 1979 (quoting Pending, Black's Law Dictionary 1314 (10th ed. filed June 5, 2007) (the Maryland Action), and a sealed action filed in Texas in 2007 (the Texas Action). At KBR, every action we take as a company is aligned with our mission, vision and values, which provides the framework for who we are and how we operate. The plaintiffs argue that this is enough to distinguish Fisher . Lincoln v. Turner , 874 F.3d 833, 839 (5th Cir. 1964). 2010) case opinion from the District of Oregon U.S. Federal District Court 3d 869, 873 (E.D. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 17781. at 183. KBR also meets the second prong, which is liberally construed. Tex. The complaint alleges that in January 2020, Iran launched ballistic missiles at the United States Army forward operating base in Al Asad, Iraq. Service Employees International performed services for the U.S. Army under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) IV contract. KB&RS is the operating company and contracting entity for KBRs Government and (Docket Entry No. website until it is completed. , 744 F.3d at 351. Congress could certainly have enacted a revival mechanism in the first-to-file rule statute notwithstanding repose and staleness concerns, but it has not done so, and we are not at liberty to create one. Following dismissal of all earlier-filed, related actions, Relator sought leave to amend his complaint to avoid preclusion under the first-to-file bar. The declaration, however, does not make clear whether the plaintiffs and Service Employees International performed the same functions as KBR. This policy argument offers no basis for disregarding the first-to-file rule's unambiguous statutory text. R. CIV. WebService Employees International Inc. (SEII) did a fantastic job in moving people around in Iraq, where I was contracted to work. I agree with the majority opinion's conclusion that the dismissal of all earlier-filed, related actions does not, by operation of law, lift the first-to-file bar on a later-filed action. Burn Pit Litig. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 440 (2016); 31 U.S.C. Without more, the court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that KBR does, or does not, qualify as the plaintiffs employer under the Defense Base Act. at 877. Courts have offered three main views. Co. , 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for certain tort claims against the federal government, but it contains several exceptions to that waiver. KBR Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. Courts look to contract terms, Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. Service Employees International/KBR Technical Services Inc. E-File Follow Case Number: 16-CA-024700 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Status: Closed Location: II. Carter's appeal centered on first-to-file issues, as well as the possibility that the WSLA tolled the statute of limitations on his claims. Carter's situation is different, because his proposed revision makes no mention of the related Maryland and Texas Actions. U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board P.O. Box at 5.37, 5.38). See 31 U.S.C. The Defense Base Act extends workers compensation coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act to "employees of American contractors engaged in construction related to military bases in foreign countries, and to foreign projects related to the national defense whether or not the project is located on a military base." For 100 years, KBR has been part of some of the worlds most influential achievements. See Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. See La. (Docket Entry No. 1, 3). See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. SEIU Homepage - Service Employees International Union (SEIU) The plaintiffs allege that they were working for a military contractor at an overseas military base and were injured when a foreign country attacked the base with missiles. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292. We held that Carter did not properly preserve the issue of equitable tolling, and so we summarily affirmed the district court's refusal to equitably toll the statute of limitations. Region Assigned: O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. Please select your preferred language. 2012) ; see also 42 U.S.C. KBR The Supreme Court, moreover, expressed agreement with this Court's rejection of dismissal with prejudice in this case, and it did not qualify this expression of agreement with the significant caveat that it disagreed with this Court's instruction of dismissal without prejudice. Discovery on these defenses will close on August 27, 2021. The Fifth Circuit has held that this definition has four elements: "[t]here must be (1) be a willful act; (2) by a third person; (3) directed against the employee because of his employment; (4) that causes the employee's injury." , 744 F.3d at 351 ("We agree with the Johnson court's reasoning and adopt its test here."). The Fisher plaintiffs were military-contractor employees providing logistics and support services in Iraq when insurgents attacked their convoys, injuring them. If an employee's injury is covered by the Act, the employee generally cannot pursue a tort claim against his employer for the same injury. at *812 & n.11. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Ctr., 816 F.3d 37, 39 (4th Cir. 3), is denied. The basis for our decision to dismiss was our view that Carter had violated the first-to-file rule by bringing the Carter Action while related FCA actions were still pending; the basis for our decision to dismiss without prejudice was our view that Carter could refile his case following the dismissals of earlier-filed, related FCA actions. Carter asserts that our prior holding that a first-to-file analysis turns on the set of facts existing at the time an FCA action was commenced has been undermined by the Supreme Court's intervening decision in this case. 1651(a)(4). We are a company of innovators, thinkers, creators, explorers, volunteers and dreamers. In June 2011, Carter filed a qui tam complaint against KBR in the Eastern District of Virginia. In a 29-page ruling, the federal district court in Oregon considered the motion by KBR and co-defendants Overseas Administration Services, Ltd. and Service Employees International, Inc. to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and rejected it. The present record does not make clear what work the plaintiffs did or what services they provided at the Al Asad base. (Docket Entry No. (Lowes Aff. Ins. 2015) (per curiam). Id. KBR Id. The D.C. 97-CV-1408, 1999 WL 33290613, at *1 (W.D. See. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. Service Employees International Union - Ballotpedia This conclusion, we add, was consistent with the conclusions of widespread, pre-Carter III circuit case law. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. Va. 2016) (arguing that Gadbois conflicts with the first-to-file rule's purpose of foreclosing duplicative qui tam actions). Because the Carter Action violated the first-to-file rule, and because the only remedy for such a violation is dismissal, the district court was correct to dismiss the Carter Action. 2d 698, 709 (S.D.N.Y. In contrast, we cannot presume that the Supreme Court intended, with one ambiguous statement, to overrule this Court's conclusion as to the proper temporal reference point for a first-to-file inquiry.5 This conclusion was never contested in the parties' briefing, and the Supreme Court did not present it as an issue before it in its opinion. Co. v. J & J Maint., Inc. , 133 F. Supp. The Ninth Circuit and D.C. 1937 (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ROCKY BIXBY, The statement itself belies the notion that live means not in violation of the first-to-file rule: The statement expresses unqualified agreement with this Court, which had just issued a decision that both applied the first-to-file rule to the Carter Action and called for dismissal without prejudice in lieu of dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court's decision in Carter III does not disturb our initial holding that the reference point for a first-to-file analysis is the set of facts in existence at the time that the action under review is commenced. Fisher , 703 F. Supp. at 44243 (citing 31 U.S.C. 25-1). Create an account and take our Ass'n Cas. A court reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) may consider "(1) the facts set forth in the complaint, (2) documents attached to the complaint, and (3) matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Federal Rule of Evidence 201." Navy. Here, the court has few, if any, facts about the relationship between the plaintiffs and KBR. 2680(j). The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, by Zoom. KBR's corporate officers guide all operations, ensuring all activity is executed responsibly. 2010) (quoting Rainwater v. United States, 356 U.S. 590, 592 (1958)). In particular, the majority opinion finds that the district court did not reversibly err in denying Relator leave to amend solely on grounds that his proposed amendment did not address any matters potentially relevant to the first-to-file rule, such as the dismissals of the [earlier-filed, related actions]. Ante at 20. Welcome to KBR.com. The Supreme Court held that, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term pending, a qui tam suit under the FCA ceases to be pending once it is dismissed. Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 197879. at 883. (Docket Entry No. 2d at 710. Finally, we note that KBR is not without policy arguments of its own. Carter's proposed amendments, however, did not address the dismissals of the Maryland and Texas Actions, but instead centered on elucidating his damages theories with information that was available prior to the filing of the Carter Action. The purpose behind the combatant-activities exceptionpreventing courts from second-guessing military decisionsdoes not require preempting torts that stem from purely private actions. Your download is being prepared. Va. 2016). The D.C. WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. 2d at 663. The record also shows that KBR's ability to control any civilian personnel, including the plaintiffs, was subject to the U.S. military's control over the Al Asad base, a forward operating base in Iraq. Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ("KB&RS"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Rather than address any matters potentially relevant to the first-to-file rule, such as the dismissals of the Maryland and Texas Actions, the proposed amendment simply adds detail to Carter's damages theories.6 As such, we see no reason why that proposal would have cured the first-to-file defect in the Carter Action. 1980). A federal defense is colorable "unless it is immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or wholly insubstantial and frivolous. " Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 296 (quoting Zeringue v. Crane Co. , 846 F.3d 785, 79394 (5th Cir. The Fifth Circuit has held that, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, an employee can have multiple "employers," each of which is entitled to immunity. Because the Maryland Action was pending on the date the Carter Action was brought, the Carter Action ran afoul of the district court's understanding of the first-to-file rule.3. The record reveals little other information about the work the plaintiffs performed at the Al Asad base, or about what level of discretion Service Employees International had over that work. R. CIV. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. 12). KBR KBR 1955 ). Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. The plaintiffs allege that they worked at the Al Asad base under the LOGCAP IV contract between the U.S. Army and Service Employees International. See United States ex rel. 2014) ; Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 724 F.3d 458, 479 (3d Cir. The subject matter underlying this case involves Appellees'Halliburton Company; KBR, Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively KBR)alleged fraudulent billing of the United States for services provided to the military forces serving in Iraq. We review a denial of leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Service Employees International Union Employee Reviews - Indeed Circuits have adopted this test, breaking it into two prongs: (1) "whether the contractor is integrated into the military's combatant activities" and (2) "whether the contractor's actions were the result of the military's retention of command authority." Were we to hold that a statutorily-barred action (i.e., an action brought while a related action is pending) could be revived by an event occurring outside the FCA's limitations period (i.e., dismissal of the related action), we would be undermining an FCA defendant's interest in repose and avoiding stale claims outside the limitations period. Carter takes issue with the policy implications of holding (i) that the first-to-file rule is violated when an FCA action is brought while a related action is pending (regardless of the eventual outcome of the latter action), and (ii) that a first-to-file violation must be sanctioned with dismissal. 1442. Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292 (citation omitted). Harm in these scenarios might be the product of U.S. military decisions. Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that Gadbois was correctly decided,8 it provides Carter no support. The main As such, we concluded that the Carter Action must be dismissed under the first-to-file rule, because the Maryland and Texas Actions were pending at the time the related Carter Action was brought. Burn Pit Litig. no. 2012) ("We liberally construe this term."). 1966) ("[T]he coverage provisions of the Defense Base Act clearly evidence the intent that the act shall afford the sole remedy for injuries or death suffered by employees in the course of employments which fall within its scope."). The Carter Action was not Carter's first attempt to sue KBR under the FCA. 2013) ; Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 751 F. Supp. To determine if an employee has multiple employers, the Fifth Circuit applies the "relative nature of the work test": Oilfield Safety , 625 F.2d at 1253 ; see also Fisher , 703 F. Supp. Id. State tort law interferes with this purpose when the military exercised some level of control over the contractor's allegedly tortious actions, but not when "the federal government has little or no control over a contractor's conduct." 2. WebSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Employer/Carrier- Respondents Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965). Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense contractors and related entities that provided logistical services to the United States military during the armed conflict in Iraq. We follow this text today, and decline to manufacture such flexibility, even if it may raise statute of limitations problems for certain FCA relators. 2d at 664. Saleh , 580 F.3d at 9 ("[A] supply contractor that had a contract to provide a product without relevant specifications would not be entitled to the preemption defense if its sole discretion, rather than the government's, were challenged."). Tex. 2005); Grynberg v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 390 F.3d 1276, 1279 (10th Cir. 1291. Jan. 5, 2017) (arguing that Gadbois failed to give sufficient weight to the plain language of the first-to-file bar) (quoting Carter VI, 315 F.R.D. With respect to the first basis for reconsideration, Carter claims that the 2015 Gadbois decisionwhere the First Circuit held that an FCA action's first-to-file defect can be cured by a Rule 15(d) supplement clarifying that an earlier-filed, related action that gave rise to the defect has been dismissedconstitutes an intervening change in controlling law. KBR submitted a declaration by Michael Flanagan, the Vice President of Government Solutions at KBR, stating that the U.S. Army had "awarded" the LOGCAP IV contract to KBR. 3. & Cas. 2d at 577 ("[T]he actions at issue were taken under the direct and detailed control of federal officers because [the contractor's] maintenance and power generation services at [a military base] were performed [under a contract] with the U.S. From January to April 2005, Appellant Benjamin Carter worked for KBR at a water purification unit employed to provide clean water to American troops serving in Iraq. at 197879; rather, the rule only keeps later actions out of court if their earlier-filed counterparts are pending, which the Court defined to mean [r]emaining undecided, id. Courts have disagreed, however, about when state tort law has the potential to conflict with military decisions during wartime. Defense Base Compensation | Pitts & Mills Law Firm | Friendswood If the contractor has significant discretion in the way it performs its duties, the military does not retain command authority.
