2d 698, 709 (S.D.N.Y. KBR Named In Alleged Rape Victim's Assault Suit - Law360 But it is unclear what these defense procedures and force-protection postures were and how they applied to the plaintiffs, to Service Employees International, or to KBR. 1-5 at 4). KBR For support, Carter cited United States ex rel. The False Claims Act's first-to-file bar provides that [w]hen a person brings an action under [the False Claims Act], 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. (Id. KBR This site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. We disagree. at 1979 (quoting Pending, Black's Law Dictionary 1314 (10th ed. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. , 744 F.3d at 348. 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?). Facts that may arise after the commencement of a relator's action, such as the dismissals of earlier-filed, related actions pending at the time the relator brought his or her action, do not factor into this analysis. KBR The Defense Base Act "includes a provision making an employer's liability under the workers compensation scheme exclusive." Va. filed June 2, 2011). Courts have had little trouble concluding that the federal government has a unique federal interest in "the management of wars." Having concluded that the above-described decision was correct, we cannot agree with Carter's argument. Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter V), 144 F. Supp. 6. KBR We disagree for two reasons. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. BENJAMIN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON CO.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC.; KBR, INC., Defendants - Appellees. While KBR did not directly employ the plaintiffs, it was a party to the LOGCAP IV contract. For 100 years, KBR has been part of some of the worlds most influential achievements. 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. We reaffirm this holding today. Net 2015); 31 U.S.C. "The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper." Va. 2016) (arguing that Gadbois conflicts with the first-to-file rule's purpose of foreclosing duplicative qui tam actions). No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Halliburton Companys stock. Id. 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. First, courts identify the "uniquely federal interests" behind the exception. United States ex rel. The purpose behind the combatant-activities exceptionpreventing courts from second-guessing military decisionsdoes not require preempting torts that stem from purely private actions. Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292 (citation omitted). Connect. Duprey, No. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 613. 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. Id. In the course of reaching this holding, however, the Court contrasted the seal requirement with the first-to-file rule, which the Court described as one of a number of [FCA] provisions that do require, in express terms, the dismissal of a relator's action. Id. 1 5 at 4- 9). Id. at 620. About KBR KBR is a global engineering, construction and services company supporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power, industrial, civil infrastructure, minerals, WebBixby et al v. KBR, Inc. et al, No. Third, courts determine whether the "private service contractor [was] integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority." 2d 639, 663 (S.D. The Defense Base Act is "liberally construed," Voris v. Eikel , 346 U.S. 328, 333, 74 S.Ct. An FCA violator may be held responsible for treble damages in addition to civil penalties. FED. See Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436. Adjusted free cash flows1. Tex. Kellogg merged with Brown & Root Engineering and Construction creating one of the worlds premiere engineering, procurement, construction (EPC) and services companies. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. 25-2). 2010); see also Goldenberg v. Murphy, 108 U.S. 162, 163 (1883) (A suit is brought when in law it is commenced.); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 974 (11th Cir. As such, the district court dismissed the Carter Action with prejudice. See Smith v. Clark/Smoot/Russell, 796 F.3d 424, 430 (4th Cir. Presumably, the Supreme Court was aware of this textual detail in making the pronouncements that it did in Carter III. WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. All rights reserved. Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that Gadbois was correctly decided,8 it provides Carter no support. KBR We affirm. 1955 ). Brown & Root 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. Cloyd v. KBR, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 3d 113 | Casetext Search 12-1497), 2013 WL 3225969. 1-1 at 5.1, 5.36). The reasons for these rulings are set out below. (quotation and citations omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement. " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 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. 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. Id. 2007) (alterations omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. Id. 3-1 at 1 n.1). We clarified, however, that once a case is no longer pending the first-to-file bar does not stop a relator from filing a related case. Id. 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). In his complaint, Carter alleged that KBR had violated the FCA by fraudulently billing the government in connection with its water purification services.2. Workers Comp. 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 1979. However, the Maryland Action was dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas Action was dismissed in March 2012. Thorough consideration should be given to limiting discovery initially to such defenses."). Id. The district court also rejected Carter's efforts to sidestep the first-to-file rule through amendment. 2680(j). 2001) ("The LHWCA is a preemption defense. 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." Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter VI), 315 F.R.D. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. United States ex rel. KBR had the authority to supervise and evacuate the Service Employees International, Inc. employees. Harm in these scenarios might be the product of U.S. military decisions. The Court has consistently urged courts to avoid "a narrow, grudging interpretation of 1442(a)(1)." Finally, the court explained that neither the Wartime Suspension and Limitations Act (WSLA) nor the principle of equitable tolling could toll the statute of limitations on the Carter Action's claims. 2015) ("We observe that sufficient federal direction has also been found under 1442(a) when a private contractor performed maintenance on generators at an Army encampment, based on the fact that this work was done under Army supervision and that the contractor could not expand the scope of its work without authorization.") 2d at 663 ; cf. Courts look to contract terms, Aiello , 751 F. Supp. ; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense contractors and related entities that provided logistical services to the United States 2510. See 31 U.S.C. 1990) ; Oilfield Safety & Machine Specs., Inc. v. Harman Unlimited, Inc. , 625 F.2d 1248, 1256 (5th Cir. The plaintiffs argue that this is enough to distinguish Fisher . 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. In January 2007, he visited the medical If a court finds that the particular action before it is barred by the first-to-file rule, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the later-filed matter, and dismissal is therefore required. As relevant here, the Court in Carter III stated that it was consider[ing] whether [Carter's] claims must be dismissed with prejudice under the first-to-file rule. Id. 2017); United States ex rel. WebSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC.; KBR, INC., Respondents. 3. The D.C. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2012) ("We liberally construe this term."). The threshold issues are whether the claims belong in federal court and whether there are viable claims at all. Co. , 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. Co., 853 F.3d 80, 8586 (2d Cir. 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." Here, the court has few, if any, facts about the relationship between the plaintiffs and KBR. 2680(j) (emphasis added). 2d at 714, and "the extent to which [the contractor] was integrated into the military chain of command," Burn Pit Litig. 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. Circuit recognized this by limiting preemption to contractor actions over which "the military retains command authority." 1-5 at 12). The insurgents attacked the plaintiffs willfully; the insurgents were third persons; the attacks were directed against the plaintiffs because of their employment as government contractors "driving trucks in support of the American coalition's rebuilding and security efforts in Iraq"; and the attack was the "direct cause" of the plaintiffs injuries. WebCareers at KBR | KBR job opportunities Belong. at 43940. In Fisher , the Fifth Circuit addressed similar claims. Create an account and take our Beauchamp v. Academi Training Ctr., 816 F.3d 37, 39 (4th Cir. Full title:KEVIN CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. 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. This Court reviews a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Carson, 851 F.3d at 302. , 744 F.3d at 351 ; and supplied weapons to vessels fighting in a combat area, Koohi , 976 F.2d at 133637. The court authorizes limited discovery on KBR's Defense Base Act and combatant-activities defenses. The Court held that the first-to-file rule does not keep later actions out of court in perpetuity, id. 2012) ; see also 42 U.S.C. no. (Id. & Cas. 959, 103 L.Ed.2d 99 (1989). 28 U.S.C. 3730(b)(5)). We therefore remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. As explained above, in our original decision in this case, we reversed the district court's dismissal of the Carter Action with prejudice, and remanded with instructions to have the Carter Action dismissed without prejudice. FindLaw's United States Fourth Circuit case and opinions. 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. The Ninth Circuit suggests that state tort law conflicts with the military regulation of wartime only when claims are brought by "those against whom force is directed as a result of authorized military action." For example, the Ninth Circuit's view would exclude claims stemming from "friendly fire," Harris , 724 F.3d at 480, and claims by "bystanders and allies, even in actual live-fire combat events," Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 1-1 at 5.39). KBR My name is [indiscernible], I will be your moderator for today's call. Id. at 180. 3d 358, 37374 (E.D. This policy argument offers no basis for disregarding the first-to-file rule's unambiguous statutory text. Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 198 n.15 (4th Cir. Paul Papak OPINION AND Put another way, [o]ne brings' an action by commencing suit. United States ex rel. (Docket Entry No. WebHighly supportive work environment. While Federal Tort Claims Act exceptions do not expressly apply to private actors, 28 U.S.C. This reasoning by the Supreme Court confirms that the only appropriate response for a first-to-file rule violation is dismissal. They made an honest effort to make sure their employees Applying this logic, and finding no statute of limitations issue, we ruled that the district court's dismissal of the Carter Action should have been without prejudice instead of with prejudice. 3730(b)(5). The The denial of the motion to dismiss is without prejudice to the defendant's ability to reurge the arguments, if appropriate, in a motion for summary judgment, after discovery targeted and limited to the Defense Base Act and combatant-activity defenses. The term "suggests that [the combatant-activities] immunity is quite broad." Carter also filed a motion to amend the Carter Action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), and argued that an amendment would confirm the inapplicability of the first-to-file rule to the Carter Action. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , 951 F.3d 286, 29091 (5th Cir. Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp., 809 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. We may affirm on any ground apparent from the record before us. Discovery on these defenses will close on August 27, 2021. 2014). Id. 31 U.S.C. "); 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."). Id. First, as an out-of-circuit decision, Gadbois cannot constitute controlling law in this Circuit. 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. Change the World! 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. , 744 F.3d 326, 348 (4th Cir. This view aligns with the exception's text, which states that the exception applies to "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities." 902(4) ; see also Fisher , 703 F. Supp. 2009) ). 2d at 664. At the same time, we must adhere to the statutory provisions and limitations that Congress put into place in pursuit of that goal. 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. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. With this understanding in mind, we reiterate the conclusion of our initial decision in this case. 12-1497), 2013 WL 4541112. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Our precedent on this issue is clear: The first-to-file rule is designed to restrict the bringing of certain types of suits, so when a relator brings an FCA action to court in violation of the first-to-file rule, the court must dismiss the action. Carson, 851 F.3d at 302. 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. The Court then remanded this case for further proceedings. Courts also agree that, "when state tort law touches the military's battlefield conduct and decisions, it inevitably conflicts with the combatant activity exception's goal of eliminating such regulation of the military during wartime." IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ROCKY BIXBY, 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." Cuvillier v. Taylor , 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. Carter urges that the Supreme Court's decision to describe one of Carter's claims as live was a manner of signaling that that claim is unaffected by the first-to-file rule.