Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense 2009). website until it is completed. While Federal Tort Claims Act exceptions do not expressly apply to private actors, 28 U.S.C. 11-cv-602 (E.D. 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. 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. 1955 ). Rule 8 "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." 2d at 710. See Smith v. Clark/Smoot/Russell, 796 F.3d 424, 430 (4th Cir. Although the Carter Action was brought while related FCA actionsnamely the Maryland and Texas Actionswere still pending, Carter argues that the intervening dismissals of the latter actions dictate that the dismissal of the Carter Action on first-to-file grounds was unwarranted. We conclude that it does. , 744 F.3d at 348 ; Aiello , 751 F. Supp. FindLaw's United States Fourth Circuit case and opinions. Section 1442(a) permits "any officer of the United States or person acting under [him or her]," 28 U.S.C. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and then affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court's decision. Ins. 3730(b)(5)). The Court has consistently urged courts to avoid "a narrow, grudging interpretation of 1442(a)(1)." Servs., Inc. , No. For support, Carter cited United States ex rel. 31 U.S.C. 1955 ). We disagree. 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. Off. 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. 1-1 at 5.39). Burn Pit Litig. To determine whether the combatant-activities exception preempts a state tort claim, courts apply the "command-authority" test. The purpose behind the combatant-activities exceptionpreventing courts from second-guessing military decisionsdoes not require preempting torts that stem from purely private actions. To define "employer" under the Act, courts have turned to the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act's definition: "an employer any of whose employees are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the navigable waters of the United States." 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. at 5.2). 3730(b)(5). We are a company of innovators, thinkers, creators, explorers, volunteers and dreamers. Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. 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. 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. at 44243 (citing 31 U.S.C. On remand, Carter objected to the applicability of the first-to-file rule. For these reasons, we do not agree with Carter that the above-described statement in any way undermined this Court's initial first-to-file analysis. 31, 2017) (collecting cases). Schmit v. ITT F. Elec. 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. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. See Ruppel v. CBS Corp. , 701 F.3d 1176, 1181 (7th Cir. 11-684-RGA, 2017 WL 63006, at *12 (D. Del. Id. Finally, we note that KBR is not without policy arguments of its own. The FCA's liability scheme is enforced through civil actions filed by the government, 31 U.S.C. 2510. Although designed to incentivize whistleblowers, the FCA also seeks to prevent parasitic lawsuits based on previously disclosed fraud. United States ex rel. KBR KBR satisfies the first prong. (Docket Entry No. $ 16. Service Employees International Union - Ballotpedia The court reiterated its view that the date that an action is brought is dispositive in a first-to-file analysis, and concluded that the fact that the Maryland and Texas Actions were both still pending on the date the complaint in the Carter Action was filed rendered the Carter Action precluded by the first-to-file rule. 1990) ; Oilfield Safety & Machine Specs., Inc. v. Harman Unlimited, Inc. , 625 F.2d 1248, 1256 (5th Cir. Without the contract or other information in the record, the court cannot reliably or accurately determine what kind of work Service Employees International performed at the Al Asad base, much less the level of discretion KBR had over that work. WebThe Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a socialist, politically powerful labor union with 2 million members in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and the largest 6. 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. Va. Dec. 12, 2011) (citation omitted). Navy. Harris , 724 F.3d at 482 ("The considerable discretion [the contractor] had in deciding how to complete the maintenance at issue here thus prevents the plaintiffs suit from being preempted because the military did not retain command authority over [the contractor's] actions. In January 2007, he visited the medical The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for certain tort claims against the federal government, but it contains several exceptions to that waiver. Because the record supports federal jurisdiction, remand is denied. Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. Id. AFIA/CIGNA Worldwide v. Felkner , 930 F.2d 1111, 1112 (5th Cir. 2d at 664. 3d 852, 858 (W.D. Co. v. United States ex rel. Without more, the court cannot conclude, as a 1, 3). 4. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 183. 3730(a), as well as through civil actionsknown as qui tam actionsthat are filed by private partiesknown as relatorsin the name of the Government, 31 U.S.C. See. 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. at 5.38, 5.39). 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. In sum, the combatant-activities exception is designed to prevent courts in state tort cases from second-guessing military decisions, after the fact. 2d 669, 683 (D. Md. The only court to apply this test in a Defense Base Act case did so on a summary judgment motion. 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. In 2006, the company separated from Halliburton and completed a successful initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange. 3. Cloyd v. KBR, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 3d 113 | Casetext Search United States ex rel. 2019) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. Id. WebKBR holds all leaders and employees to the highest standards of business and personal integrity, abiding by the strictest ethical and legal standards. (Docket Entry No. 1:11-cv-602, 2011 WL 6178878, at *8 (E.D. I write separately to emphasize the narrow scope of that conclusion. {Kbr In Iraq}: Deliver water in tractor tank at a military base in Iraq What they like about Service Employee International,Inc. 10-CV-5645, 2017 WL 1233991, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. As the Supreme Court has explained, "the raising of a federal question in the officer's removal petition constitutes the federal law under which the action against the federal officer arises for Art. Please try again. Under the employment agreement, Rogers agreed to submit any claims to arbitration in accordance with the Halliburton Dispute Resolution Program 2005) ; Carr v. Lockheed Martin Tech. WebService Employees International, Inc. (SEII) through KBR to work as an electrician in Afghanistan. 3730(b)(5). See Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 ; see also Garcia v. Amfels, Inc. , 254 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. The Defense Base Act "includes a provision making an employer's liability under the workers compensation scheme exclusive." 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." 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. The limited record shows that the military had control over the safety and defense protocols at the Al Asad base. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999). WebCajetan Okeh v. Service Employees International (2014) Jeremy Stokes v. Service Employees International, Inc. (2014) James Breashears v. Brown and Root (Id. at 5.37, 5.38). KBR See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 183. 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. 3730(b)(5). 2015), an intervening First Circuit decision holding that an FCA relator could cure a first-to-file defect by supplementing his or her complaintpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d)with an allegation that the earlier-filed, related actions that gave rise to the first-to-file defect had been dismissed. Heath v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112, 11921 (D.C. Cir. at 877. at 197578. 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. 2009) ). 2001) ("The LHWCA is a preemption defense. The district court denied Carter's motion for reconsideration, explaining that Gadbois did not constitute new controlling law justifying reconsideration because it was decided outside this Circuit. 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. For a discussion of unsuccessful, pre-Carter Action suits brought by Carter against KBR, see United States ex rel. 1948) ; Burn Pit Litig. 3730(b)(5). , 744 F.3d at 349. {Kbr In Iraq} Work Values Interested in finding out if you are the type of person this company is looking for? Although Carter and his counsel referenced the dismissals of the Maryland and Texas Actions in their briefing and during oral arguments, these references do not rise to the level of proposed revisions to a complaint. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to explore the potential application of the first-to-file rule. For 100 years, KBR has been part of some of the worlds most influential achievements. (Id. Kevin CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. Tex. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. The plaintiffs allege that KBR was not a party to the LOGCAP IV contract. Cuvillier v. Taylor , 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 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." This arrangement, Carter contends, conflicts with the Supreme Court's apparent policy preference for interpretations of the FCA that facilitate government recoveries. The present record does not make clear what work the plaintiffs did or what services they provided at the Al Asad base. Adjusted free cash flows1. 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. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 1979 (The False Claims Act's qui tam provisions present many interpretive challenges, and it is beyond our ability in this case to make them operate together smoothly like a finely tuned machine.). 2000). 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. Service Employees International/KBR Technical Services KBR's motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 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. 1-5 at 49). KBR may file a motion for summary judgment on the Defense Base Act and combatant-activities exceptions no later than September 17, 2021. 2020). It is also unclear how much discretion KBR and Service Employees International had as to whether, when, and how to evacuate contractors working under the LOGCAP IV contract. The third prong is also met. 1442. 2005); Grynberg v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 390 F.3d 1276, 1279 (10th Cir. Liability under the FCA is no small matter. 1955 ). The plaintiffs motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Id. See Burn Pit Litig. The result of this welcoming mindset informs everything we do and accomplish, and has earned the respect of the worlds most renowned institutions. SEII and KBR were affiliated companies that were bothsubsidiariesofHalliburton,Inc. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , 951 F.3d 286, 29091 (5th Cir. 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. 2013). Finally, KBR meets the fourth prong, showing that the plaintiffs claims are "alternatively connected or associated" with "acts under color of federal office." 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. 2d at 663. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14, Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David S. Stone, counsel for Petitioner, certify that on this I 61h day of In this case, the plaintiffs are suing the parent company of their employer; in Fisher , the plaintiffs sued their employer and other affiliated entities. Id. 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. 1-5 at 12). Id. The term "suggests that [the combatant-activities] immunity is quite broad." At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. In his complaint, Carter alleged that KBR had violated the FCA by fraudulently billing the government in connection with its water purification services.2. 1955 ). Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 440 (2016); 31 U.S.C. 2012). (Id. An FCA violator may be held responsible for treble damages in addition to civil penalties.