For a discussion of unsuccessful, pre-Carter Action suits brought by Carter against KBR, see United States ex rel. 2d at 709 (citing O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. , 340 U.S. 504, 507, 71 S.Ct. 2d at 663. 1651(c) ); see also Flying Tiger Lines, Inc. v. Landy , 370 F.2d 46, 52 (9th Cir. , 744 F.3d at 351. The fact that the Maryland Action had been dismissed prior to the district court's ruling on the Carter Action gave the court no pause, because it believed that whether a qui tam action is barred by [the first-to-file rule] is determined by looking at the facts as they existed when the action was brought. United States ex rel. Next, Carter tries to rely on the Supreme Court's statement that it agree[s] with the Fourth Circuit that the dismissal with prejudice of [Carter's] one live claim was error. Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 1979. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2d at 714 ("Any renovation activities required approval from the [the military] before they could be performed."). 25-3); and the plaintiffs have alleged that KBR had control over them, (Docket Entry No. KBR employs approximately 32,000 people worldwide with customers in more than 80 countries and operations in 33 countries. {Kbr In Iraq}: Deliver water in tractor tank at a military base in Iraq What they like about Service Employee International,Inc. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 1657, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981) ; Jefferson County v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. 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 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. Our innate curiosity about our surrounding world creates a work environment where all are encouraged to follow their inspiration, try new directions and work collaboratively whenever possible. Accordingly, the appropriate reference point for a first-to-file analysis is the set of facts in existence at the time that the FCA action under review is commenced. Carter contends that the first and third bases for reconsideration are implicated in this case. 1937 (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. 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. Total preemption might, for example, preclude claims based on "contractors contractual violations," even though "the conduct underlying these violations is [independent] of the military's battlefield conduct and decisions." Contact us. In January 2007, he visited the medical 1291. We affirm. Ins. Under the Act, "[e]mployers relinquish[ ] their defenses to tort actions in exchange for limited and predictable liability," and "[e]mployees accept the limited recovery because they receive prompt relief without the expense, uncertainty, and delay that tort actions entail." KBR satisfies the first prong. Finally, KBR meets the fourth prong, showing that the plaintiffs claims are "alternatively connected or associated" with "acts under color of federal office." $ 83. We note briefly that two of our sister circuits have held that a first-to-file defect bears only on the merits of a relator's action, rather than on a district court's jurisdiction over it. Adjusted free cash flows1. KBR Int'l , 986 F.2d 1103, 1104 (7th Cir. The FCA contains a provision, known as the first-to-file rule, which bars these private individuals, known as relators, from bringing actions under the FCA while a related action is pending. WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. While KBR did not directly employ the plaintiffs, it was a party to the LOGCAP IV contract. The plaintiffs position is that the Defense Base Act does not apply because they did not have a direct employment relationship with KBR. civ. (Docket Entry No. 2d at 710. 1-1 at 5.2). Financial Highlights for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2023. 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. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter V), 144 F. Supp. Corporate Governance KBR's 1-5 at 4). KBR 3729(a)(1). See Smith v. Clark/Smoot/Russell, 796 F.3d 424, 430 (4th Cir. KBR The plaintiffs claims arise from the work they performed under their employer's contract with the military and involve actions that took place on a military base. 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. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. 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." Id. 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. 2d at 702, 71213 ; maintained "electrical systems at a barracks in an active war," Harris , 724 F.3d at 481 ; performed waste-management and water treatment functions to aid military personnel in a combat area, Burn Pit Litig. 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. This view aligns with the exception's text, which states that the exception applies to "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities." Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that Gadbois was correctly decided,8 it provides Carter no support. KBR, Inc. (NYSE:NYSE:KBR) Q1 2023 Earnings Conference Call May 1, 2023 8:30 AM ETCompany ParticipantsJamie DuBray - Investor RelationsStuart Bradie - President and 2005) ; Carr v. Lockheed Martin Tech. "); 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."). 28 U.S.C. (Id. We cannot support Carter's reading. This arrangement, Carter contends, conflicts with the Supreme Court's apparent policy preference for interpretations of the FCA that facilitate government recoveries. See United States ex rel. 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. Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. Kevin CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. at 5.2). The result of this welcoming mindset informs everything we do and accomplish, and has earned the respect of the worlds most renowned institutions. Id. 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. 2020). Presumably, the Supreme Court was aware of this textual detail in making the pronouncements that it did in Carter III. Change the World! Please try again. 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. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. KBR's Vice President of Government Solutions submitted a declaration stating that KBR typically performs "operations and maintenance, laundry, water and ice production and delivery, firefighting, fuel delivery, and waste management" in Iraq. With respect to the third basis for reconsideration, Carter argues that the district court's decision to dismiss the Carter Action and to deny his proposed amendment was clearly erroneous and manifestly unjust. Va. 2015). 2000) (en banc) ([B]rought and bring refer to the filing or commencement of a lawsuit, not to its continuation.); Chandler v. D.C. Dep't of Corr., 145 F.3d 1355, 1359 (D.C. Cir. Halliburton Company is a publicly traded corporation and has no parent company. Full title:KEVIN CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 440 (2016); 31 U.S.C. FED. 15), is denied. Because Carter commenced the Carter Action while the Maryland and Texas Actions were still pending, he clearly br[ought] an action while factually related litigation remained pending, 31 U.S.C. In the Supreme Court of the United States - oregonlive 2007) (alterations omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. The term "suggests that [the combatant-activities] immunity is quite broad." Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , 951 F.3d 286, 29091 (5th Cir. 2d at 714, and "the extent to which [the contractor] was integrated into the military chain of command," Burn Pit Litig. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. , 744 F.3d at 348 ; Aiello , 751 F. Supp. WebService Employees International, Inc. (SEII) through KBR to work as an electrician in Afghanistan. Under that rule, [w]hen a person brings an action under [the FCA], no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action. 31 U.S.C. Courts determine whether the U.S. military has command authority over a contractor by examining the contractor's discretion in performing its duties. III purposes." The FCA imposes liability for knowingly presenting false or fraudulent claims to the government of the United States for payment or approval. (Docket Entry No. This conclusion, we add, was consistent with the conclusions of widespread, pre-Carter III circuit case law. Burn Pit Litig. Defense Base Compensation | Pitts & Mills Law Firm | Friendswood (Docket Entry No. Circuit suggested that the combatant-activities exception eliminates "tort from the battlefield." 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. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HALLIBURTON CO.; In a qui tam action under the FCA, a relator files the complaint under seal, and serves a copy of the complaint and an evidentiary disclosure on the government. Courts have offered three main views. FED. Unfortunately, KBR decided to ignore the unambiguous threats of retaliation levied by Iran following the death of General Qassem Soleimani. 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. 5 (1953) ; the plaintiffs filed a claim under the Act against KBR, alleging that KBR is its employer, (Docket Entry Nos. (Docket Entry No. 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. 2014). Please select your preferred language. United States ex rel. Carter's situation is different, because his proposed revision makes no mention of the related Maryland and Texas Actions. Service Employee International,Inc.{KBR in IRAQ} in Dubai Carter resists this conclusion, based on unreasonable readings of certain statements from Carter III. 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. Third, courts determine whether the "private service contractor [was] integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority." The plaintiffs allege that KBR negligently failed to "evacuate contractors" or "provide security measures," such as "communication of safety information and status updates, a means of evacuating Iraq when conditions became unreasonably dangerous, and protection from violent attacks." The plaintiffs claims are associated with acts taken under color of federal office. Co., 560 F.3d 371, 378 (5th Cir 2009))). WebDue to an expansion in the scope of the contract, KBR provided support for up to 187,900 troops across 80 sites, the company said. no. Va. filed June 2, 2011). 2016). at 60); United States ex rel. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. 25-2). KBR may file a motion for summary judgment on the Defense Base Act and combatant-activities exceptions no later than September 17, 2021. One plaintiff, Witherspoon, submitted a Defense Base Act Claim for Compensation stating that she was a "Senior Security Officer." Additionally, the district court held that all but one of the Carter Action's claims fell outside the applicable six-year statute of limitations on civil actions. On the present record, the court is also unable to determine whether, and to what extent, KBR and Service Employees International were integrated into the military chain of command. KBR also meets the second prong, which is liberally construed. at 183. at 181. 1-1 at 5.39). In this case, back before this Court for a third time, we consider whether the first-to-file rule mandates dismissal of a relator's action that was brought while related actions were pending, even after the related actions have been dismissed and the relator's complaint has been amended, albeit without mention of the related actions. The only court to apply this test in a Defense Base Act case did so on a summary judgment motion. With this understanding in mind, we reiterate the conclusion of our initial decision in this case. 2d 639, 663 (S.D. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 1-5 at 12). 12). The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 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. The attack was allegedly in retaliation for the killing of General Qassem Soleimani. Carter, in effect, reads the Court's statement to mean that an earlier suit bars the continuation of a later suit while the earlier suit remains undecided but ceases to bar the continuation of that suit once it is dismissed. This reading would empower courts conducting a first-to-file analysis to take into account the dismissals of an action giving rise to a relator's first-to-file problems. Id. The Federal Officer Removal Statute states: "Federal officers may remove cases to federal court that ordinary federal question removal would not reach." The district court also rejected Carter's efforts to sidestep the first-to-file rule through amendment. Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292 (citation omitted). See Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 ; see also Garcia v. Amfels, Inc. , 254 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. To remove under 1442(a), KBR must show that "(1) it is a person within the meaning of the statute, (2) it acted pursuant to a federal officer's directions, (3) it asserts a colorable federal defense, " and (4) there is " a causal nexus between the defendant's acts under color of federal office and the plaintiff's claims." (Id. We acknowledged, however, that the district court's judgment was not entirely error-free, because dismissal with prejudice of the one claim Carter brought within the limitations period was not called for under the first-to-file rule. Fisher v. Halliburton , 703 F. Supp. 1. 2004); United States ex rel. As such, we conclude that Carter III left the above-described holding intact. Courts have held that contractors were engaging in combatant activities when they managed latrines "for active military combatants on a forward operating base," Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter VI), 315 F.R.D. 2012). at 620. 2015). See Martin v. Halliburton , 618 F.3d 476, 488 (5th Cir. The D.C. Co. v. United States ex rel. Va. 2016) (arguing that Gadbois conflicts with the first-to-file rule's purpose of foreclosing duplicative qui tam actions). 33 U.S.C. Because it did not have to reach the issue, the district court reserved judgment on whether the Texas Action also precluded the Carter Action. Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. 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.

Confidence Interval For Sum Of Regression Coefficients, University Of Arkansas Fraternities, St Peter Catholic Church Bulletin, Christy Funeral Home Obituaries, Articles S