, 744 F.3d at 348. KBR has also been awarded 15 Logistics Civil Augmentation Program ( LOGCAP) task orders worth more than $216 million for work under Operation Enduring Freedom, the military name for operations in Afghanistan. These include establishing base camps at Kandahar and Bagram Air Base and training foreign troops from the Republic of Georgia. A relator who brings a meritorious qui tam action receives attorney's fees, court costs, and a percentage of recovered proceeds. Va. filed June 2, 2011). Kevin Cloyd, Nickalandra Witherspoon, and Lucille Andrade were employed by Service Employees International and working at the Al Asad base when the attack occurred. WebInc. In his complaint, Carter alleged that KBR had violated the FCA by fraudulently billing the government in connection with its water purification services.2. 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. Bell Atl. Adjusted free cash flows1. Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292. The Ninth Circuit and D.C. 33 U.S.C. In workmen's compensation statutes, the phrase "arising out of" "denote[s] any causal relationship." Saleh , 580 F.3d at 9 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. (Docket Entry No. WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. In June 2011, Carter filed a qui tam complaint against KBR in the Eastern District of Virginia. 1-5 at 49). 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. The district court's judgments comport with this holding, and they are therefore. WebLaw360, New York (October 31, 2011, 9:24 PM EDT) -- A former Service Employees International Inc. operations specialist on Friday sued Service Employees and defense at 181. In this case, the plaintiffs are suing the parent company of their employer; in Fisher , the plaintiffs sued their employer and other affiliated entities. Finding no error in the district court's denial, we affirm. The Carter Action was not Carter's first attempt to sue KBR under the FCA. Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 1979 (asking rhetorically, Why would Congress want the abandonment of an earlier suit to bar a later potentially successful suit that might result in a large recovery for the Government?). at 620. The Supreme Court concluded, [w]e therefore agree with the Fourth Circuit that the dismissal with prejudice of [Carter's] one live claim was error. Id. The Supreme Court began by reversing this Court's conclusion that the WSLA's tolling provisions apply to civil actions like the Carter Action. 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. 1-1 at 5.1, 5.36). The Court held that the appropriate response to a seal violation was left to the discretion of the district court, in light of Congressional silence on the issue of how to sanction a seal violation. The lead-up to Carter's second-quoted statement confirms that the Court was only using the description live to mean not time-barred. See id. Connect. Fisher , 703 F. Supp. 2012) ; see also 42 U.S.C. website until it is completed. Workers Comp. Tex. Co. , 149 F.3d 387, 398 (5th Cir. Willingham v. Morgan , 395 U.S. 402, 407, 89 S.Ct. 4. 3730(b)(5), and therefore violated the first-to-file rule. 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. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The Act "establishes a uniform, federal compensation scheme for civilian contractors and their employees for injuries sustained" while working abroad under a contract with the United States. 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. Id. 2680(j). We are a company of innovators, thinkers, creators, explorers, volunteers and dreamers. The declaration, however, does not make clear whether the plaintiffs and Service Employees International performed the same functions as KBR. Although the present record is insufficient for the court to determine whether either or both defenses apply, KBR has asserted a colorable basis to infer that one or both may preempt the plaintiffs claims. For a discussion of unsuccessful, pre-Carter Action suits brought by Carter against KBR, see United States ex rel. But we all share one goal: to improve the world responsibly and safely. The court added that all of the Carter Action's claims would fall outside the limitations period if Carter were to refile his action. 1991). At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. The company's corporate offices are in the KBR Tower in Downtown Houston. The company also has large offices in Arlington, Virginia, Birmingham, Alabama, and Newark, Delaware, in the United States and Leatherhead in the UK. The Defense Base Act is designed to "save the previous heavy expense of providing its contractors with insurance of such employees on the basis of tort liability and full accident insurance." 1442. We therefore remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. 3. Mar. The plaintiffs claims are associated with acts taken under color of federal office. Liability under the FCA is no small matter. He, too, did not question this Court's decision to conduct its first-to-file analysis based on the facts in existence at the time that the Carter Action was brought.4. 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."). Fisher v. Halliburton , 667 F.3d 602, 610 (5th Cir. Revenue of $1.7 billion, up 18% on an ex-OAW 1 year-over-year-basis. The attack was allegedly in retaliation for the killing of General Qassem Soleimani. {Kbr In Iraq}: You highly value a work environment built on 3d 852, 858 (W.D. Mesa v. California , 489 U.S. 121, 136, 109 S.Ct. 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. Carter resists this conclusion, based on unreasonable readings of certain statements from Carter III. no. Full title:KEVIN CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. This Court fully supports the FCA's noble goal of protecting the government's funds and property against fraud. 1993) ("The Defense Base Act generally entitles employees at overseas military bases to benefits of the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act[.]"). The majority opinion further concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Relator leave to amend. 10). Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp., 809 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 3. 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. 2019) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. Id. La. 3-1 at 1, 25-1, 25-2); KBR has an insurance policy, as required under the Act, (Docket Entry No. 2000) ("The purpose of the Defense Base Act is to provide uniformity and certainty in availability of compensation for injured employees on military bases outside the United States."). The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs claims were barred under the Defense Base Act. KBR is a signatory to the LOGCAP IV contract, (Docket Entry No. Burn Pit Litig. 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. We affirm. United States ex rel. Harris , 724 F.3d at 480. 2019). 1651(a)(4). On remand, this Court addressed an argument pressed by Carter that he could rely on the principle of equitable tolling to render the Carter Action timely. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("We agree with the Johnson court's reasoning and adopt its test here."). Send us a message if you have any questions. Courts have had little trouble concluding that the federal government has a unique federal interest in "the management of wars." 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. The combatant-activities exception is part of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which does not "provide immunity to nongovernmental actors." KBR employs approximately 32,000 people worldwide with customers in more than 80 countries and operations in 33 countries. Ass'n Cas. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 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. We do so in this case by holding that because the Carter Action violated the FCA's first-to-file rule in a manner not cured by subsequent developments, the action must be dismissed. The D.C. P. 8(a)(2). Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. See Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 296 ("[The government contractor] performed the refurbishment and, allegedly, the installation of asbestos pursuant to directions of the U.S. The plaintiffs do not allege that Iran attacked them out of "personal animosity" or for "purely personal reasons." See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. Our reading respects the statutory text underlying the first-to-file rule. 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. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Ctr., 816 F.3d 37, 39 (4th Cir. 1291. First, as an out-of-circuit decision, Gadbois cannot constitute controlling law in this Circuit. Your download is being prepared. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), to determine whether a Federal Tort Claims Act exception preempts state law. 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. 1955 ). Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 11-684-RGA, 2017 WL 63006, at *12 (D. Del. Another plaintiff, Andrade, submitted a Claim stating that she was a "Food Service Worker." 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. 33 U.S.C. Following dismissal of all earlier-filed, related actions, Relator sought leave to amend his complaint to avoid preclusion under the first-to-file bar. This policy argument offers no basis for disregarding the first-to-file rule's unambiguous statutory text. Carter argues that even if the dismissals of the Maryland and Texas Actions did not automatically cure the Carter Action's first-to-file defect, his subsequent, Rule 15(a)-based proposed amendment to his Carter Action complaint would have done so. 1990) ; Oilfield Safety & Machine Specs., Inc. v. Harman Unlimited, Inc. , 625 F.2d 1248, 1256 (5th Cir. (Docket Entry No. Corporate Governance KBR's Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter II), 710 F.3d 171, 17476 (4th Cir. The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, by Zoom. Co., 560 F.3d 371, 378 (5th Cir 2009))). Net Tex. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14, Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. 3730(b)(5). Flanagan's declaration, submitted by KBR, states that the Army was responsible for establishing the "defense procedures and force protection postures" that applied to military and civilian personnel at the Al Asad base. Id. 1-5 at 613). 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. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 613. (Docket Entry No. 2d at 714 ("Any renovation activities required approval from the [the military] before they could be performed."). Because, on the current record, the court cannot reliably determine whether either defense is preemptive as KBR argues, the motion to dismiss is also denied. 2020). 2016). Financial Highlights for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2023. Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. We follow this text today, and decline to manufacture such flexibility, even if it may raise statute of limitations problems for certain FCA relators. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. 28 U.S.C. 31 U.S.C. 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. {Kbr In Iraq}: Deliver water in tractor tank at a military base in Iraq What they like about Service Employee International,Inc. 2017).1. For 100 years, KBR has been part of some of the worlds most influential achievements. 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. KBR holds all leaders and employees to the highest standards of business and personal integrity, abiding by the strictest ethical and legal standards. Presumably, the Supreme Court was aware of this textual detail in making the pronouncements that it did in Carter III. Army."). Koohi v. U.S. , 976 F.2d 1328, 133637 (9th Cir.1992). Courts apply a three-step test, derived from Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500, 507, 108 S.Ct. Each step is examined below. R. CIV. Other courts have rejected this test as excessively narrow because it limits the combatant-activities exception to "claims stemming directly from the use of force," excluding indirect wartime harms. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1188 (9th Cir. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("[T]he extent to which [the defendant] was integrated into the military chain of command is unclear."). 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." The plaintiffs do not describe the type of work they performed at the Al Asad base. at 50712, 108 S.Ct. Because it did not have to reach the issue, the district court reserved judgment on whether the Texas Action also precluded the Carter Action. 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. 25-3); and the plaintiffs have alleged that KBR had control over them, (Docket Entry No. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. KB&RS is the operating company and contracting entity for KBRs Government and With this understanding in mind, we reiterate the conclusion of our initial decision in this case. Carter argued that the dismissals of the related Maryland and Texas Actions cured any first-to-file defect in the Carter Action. I received a letter listing my income Ask an Expert Tax Questions I work in Iraq for KBR and Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292 (citation omitted). Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense Office of Inspector General - General Audits, Office of Inspector General - Investigations, Office of Inspector General - Ongoing Reviews, Office of Inspector General - Peer Review, 1947 Taft-Hartley Passage and NLRB Structural Changes, Impact of the NLRB on Professional Sports, Federal Employee and Applicant EEO Policies, The Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status, Voter List and Military Ballots Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, National Labor Relations Board Rulemaking, National Labor Relations Board Rulemaking Archive, Retaliation Based on Exercise of Workplace Rights Is Unlawful, Advice Memoranda Dealing with Handbook Rules post-Boeing, Advice Memoranda and Emails Dealing with COVID-19, Appellate Court Briefs and Petitions filed by the General Counsel, Contempt, Compliance, and Special Litigation Branch Briefs, Information on Decisions Issued by January 4, 2012 Board Member Appointees, Injunction Litigation Branch Appellate Briefs, Petitions for Review & Applications for Enforcement, Interagency & International Collaboration, Unfair Labor Practice and Representation Cases Filed per Fiscal Year, Disposition of Unfair Labor Practice Cases, Unfair Labor Practice Cases by Filing Party per Fiscal Year, Unfair Labor Practice Charges Filed Each Year, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, 8(a)(1) Concerted Activities (Retaliation, Discharge, Discipline). See Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 ; see also Garcia v. Amfels, Inc. , 254 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. WebCajetan Okeh v. Service Employees International (2014) Jeremy Stokes v. Service Employees International, Inc. (2014) James Breashears v. Brown and Root Because the record supports federal jurisdiction, remand is denied. Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A defendant acts under a federal officer's directions when it acts under a contract with the federal government to perform "a job that, in the absence of a contract with a private firm, the Government itself would have had to perform." at 50407, 108 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 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." Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610. 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.