Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge. 1813, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969) ; Arizona v. Manypenny , 451 U.S. 232, 242, 101 S.Ct. 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. at 481 ("After all, if the contractors conduct did follow from the military's decisions or orders, then the conduct would presumably not be in violation of the contract."). Tex. KBR employs approximately 32,000 people worldwide with customers in more than 80 countries and operations in 33 countries. 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. 2680(j). Ass'n Cas. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 183. Second, courts determine whether refusing to apply the exception to government contractors would produce a "significant conflict" between unique federal interests and state law. (Id. 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. This site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. 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." To that end, the majority opinion does not address, much less adopt, the district court's reasoning that an amendment or supplement to a complaint cannot, as a matter of law, cure a first-to-file defect, id. Please try again. (Docket Entry No. 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." Se., Inc. , 913 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. Adjusted free cash flows1. Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 198 n.15 (4th Cir. 470, 95 L.Ed. Kellogg merged with Brown & Root Engineering and Construction creating one of the worlds premiere engineering, procurement, construction (EPC) and services companies. 5. Co. , 149 F.3d 387, 398 (5th Cir. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (the Carter Action), No. (Id. 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 False Claims Act (FCA) empowers private individuals acting on behalf of the government to bring civil actions against those that defraud the government. 1:11-cv-602, 2011 WL 6178878, at *8 (E.D. The FCA's liability scheme is enforced through civil actions filed by the government, 31 U.S.C. The declaration, however, does not make clear whether the plaintiffs and Service Employees International performed the same functions as KBR. Second, Gadbois is factually distinguishable. 2019) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. civ. However, the Maryland Action was dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas Action was dismissed in March 2012. See Burn Pit Litig. 2010) ("Because the basis for many of these defenses is a respect for the interests of the Government in military matters, district courts should take care to develop and resolve such defenses at an early stage while avoiding, to the extent possible, any interference with military prerogatives. The Ninth Circuit also seemed to walk back its statement by suggesting that the combatant-activities exception would apply to plaintiffs who were not harmed by the direct use of force, such as "those who supply ammunition to fighting vessels in a combat area" and "those who supply a vessel's weapons." Placing profits over the safety of these individuals and contractors, KBR failed to evacuate them. (Docket Entry No. I work in Iraq for KBR and am paid by Service Employees Int"l in Dubai, UAE. 1651(c) ); see also Flying Tiger Lines, Inc. v. Landy , 370 F.2d 46, 52 (9th Cir. 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. The plaintiffs argue that this is enough to distinguish Fisher . See Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436. "); 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."). Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense at 183. This view aligns with the exception's text, which states that the exception applies to "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities." Harris , 724 F.3d at 481. 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.). 2007) (alterations omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. 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. 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. 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. We affirm. To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must include "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." See Heavin v. Mobil Oil Expl. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. The Supreme Court acknowledged, however, that Carter had raised additional arguments that, if successful, could render at least one claim of his timely on remand. Co. , 920 F.3d 890, 900 (5th Cir. 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. 3730(b)(2). 2000). The Federal Officer Removal Statute states: "Federal officers may remove cases to federal court that ordinary federal question removal would not reach." at 1978. 88, 98 L.Ed. The complaint alleges that in January 2020, Iran launched ballistic missiles at the United States Army forward operating base in Al Asad, Iraq. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("[T]he extent to which [the defendant] was integrated into the military chain of command is unclear."). World Airways, Inc. , 338 F.2d 319, 322 (5th Cir. Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292. 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. 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. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 17781. 1955 ). SEII and KBR were affiliated companies that were bothsubsidiariesofHalliburton,Inc. 31 U.S.C. 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. 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."). Based on the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the court finds no basis to remand, and denies the motion to dismiss. 97-CV-1408, 1999 WL 33290613, at *1 (W.D. 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. 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. See Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. 2014)). 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. Net This lengthy test is highly fact dependent. WebKBR was created in 1998 when M.W. Finally, Carter contests the district court's denial of his Rule 59(e)-based motion for reconsideration. Courts have had little trouble concluding that the federal government has a unique federal interest in "the management of wars." 28 U.S.C. Chovanec v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., 606 F.3d 361, 362 (7th Cir. Id. 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. 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. We reaffirm this holding today. Another plaintiff, Andrade, submitted a Claim stating that she was a "Food Service Worker." WebBrown & Root provides engineering consulting services, including project management, operations and maintenance including: Industrial Small-Cap Construction; Installation; Maintenance; Repair; Turnaround services. In adopting the FCA, the objective of Congress was broadly to protect the funds and property of the government. United States ex rel. In January 2007, he visited the medical The court added that, in any event, it found Gadbois unpersuasive. 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. "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." 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." At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. WebSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Employer/Carrier- Respondents Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965). 2014). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and then affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court's decision. The Ninth Circuit and D.C. 2012). TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. As discussed below, KBR asserts colorable federal defenses under the Defense Base Act and the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. The main , 744 F.3d at 347 (applying the Saleh test); Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 (same). 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. 10). 2005) ; Carr v. Lockheed Martin Tech. 6. My name is [indiscernible], I will be your moderator for today's call. 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. We disagree. Mar. The Court held that the first-to-file rule does not keep later actions out of court in perpetuity, id. Id. Click here to learn how to enable. "The removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper." UNITED STATES BENJAMIN CARTER v. HALLIBURTON CO KELLOGG BROWN ROOT SERVICES INC SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC KBR INC. UNITED STATES ex rel. First, as an out-of-circuit decision, Gadbois cannot constitute controlling law in this Circuit. 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. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14, Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. 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. 1-1 at 5.39). Owens v. First Kuwaiti Gen. Trading & Contracting Co., 612 F.3d 724, 728 (4th Cir. Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. The Defense Base Act "includes a provision making an employer's liability under the workers compensation scheme exclusive." Thorough consideration should be given to limiting discovery initially to such defenses."). We disagree for two reasons. Id. The Act does not define "employer." at 442444. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. application of plaintiff for an extension of time to file a petition for a The plaintiffs claims are associated with acts taken under color of federal office. Circuit recognized this by limiting preemption to contractor actions over which "the military retains command authority." 1990) ; Oilfield Safety & Machine Specs., Inc. v. Harman Unlimited, Inc. , 625 F.2d 1248, 1256 (5th Cir. The Third, Fourth, and D.C. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. 2017) ). 2d at 714, and "the extent to which [the contractor] was integrated into the military chain of command," Burn Pit Litig. 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. The FCA imposes liability for knowingly presenting false or fraudulent claims to the government of the United States for payment or approval. Webhalliburton co.; kellogg brown & root services, inc.; service employees international inc.; kbr, inc., respondents. 2012) ("[The plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress] will be dismissed because it can only be viewed as a negligence claim for which the exclusive remedy for the Plaintiffs is under the [Defense Base Act]."). The Supreme Court began by reversing this Court's conclusion that the WSLA's tolling provisions apply to civil actions like the Carter Action. The first-to-file rule provides that [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. The Fifth Circuit construes the statute in favor of remand and construes ambiguities against the removing party. See United States ex rel. The complaint alleges that Iran attacked the Al Asad base in "retaliation [for] the death of General Qassem Soleimani." 2d at 664. Webkbr, inc. and services employees international, inc., defendants.))))) Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610. Mesa v. California , 489 U.S. 121, 136, 109 S.Ct. 2012). But we all share one goal: to improve the world responsibly and safely. "); Vance v. CHF Int'l , 914 F. Supp. , 744 F.3d at 348. See Ruppel v. CBS Corp. , 701 F.3d 1176, 1181 (7th Cir. 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. WebSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC.; KBR, INC., Respondents. 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. See Ross v. DynCorp , 362 F. Supp. , 744 F.3d at 348 ("We find the Third Circuit's analysis persuasive and adopt its formulation of the interest at play here."). 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. (Id. 2510. 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. WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. 3d 869, 873 (E.D. Your download is being prepared. 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 same reasoning applies here. Carter opposed certiorari, insisting that this Court correctly decided that the district court's jurisdictional dismissal of the case should have been without prejudice. Brief in Opposition at 17, Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970 (No. I write separately to emphasize the narrow scope of that conclusion. We may affirm on any ground apparent from the record before us. KBR subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. Finally, we note that KBR is not without policy arguments of its own. KBR, INC., KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICE, INC., KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LTD., and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. 3730(b)(5). 31 U.S.C. WebKBR Technical Services, Inc., Overseas Administration Services, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, the "KBR defendants"), on June 8, 2009. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 613. 3730(d). Wood v. Allergan, Inc., No. 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. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. 2d 698, 709 (S.D.N.Y. 1-5 at 613). While Federal Tort Claims Act exceptions do not expressly apply to private actors, 28 U.S.C. Johnson v. United States , 170 F.2d 767, 770 (9th Cir. Welcome to KBR.com. Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. WebWebsite: www.kbr.com Headquarters: Houston, TX Size: 10000+ Employees Founded: 1901 Type: Company - Public (KBR) Industry: Aerospace & Defense Revenue: $5 to $10 billion (USD) We deliver science, technology and engineering solutions to governments and companies around the world. 3730(b)(5), and therefore violated the first-to-file rule. We follow this text today, and decline to manufacture such flexibility, even if it may raise statute of limitations problems for certain FCA relators. With this understanding in mind, we reiterate the conclusion of our initial decision in this case. v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2169 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Circuit suggested that the combatant-activities exception eliminates "tort from the battlefield." 2017). Carter did not, however, contest the district court's decision to assess the first-to-file rule based on the facts as they existed at the time that the Carter Action was brought. 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. at 5.29, 5.34). Likewise, the majority opinion does not address whether the district court's rule categorically barring a relator from supplementing a complaint to cure a first-to-file defect is consistent with this Court's decision in Feldman v. Law Enforcemt Associates Corp., 752 F.3d 339, 347 (4th Cir. See. 2015) (per curiam). I received a letter listing my income Ask an Expert Tax Questions I work in Iraq for KBR and 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 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. at 43940. Va. 2016). The Supreme Court, therefore, agreed with this Court's conclusion that dismissal with prejudice of any timely aspect of the Carter Action was improper. 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. 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. All rights reserved. The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, by Zoom. Service Employees International/KBR Technical Services Inc. E-File Follow Case Number: 16-CA-024700 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Status: Closed Location:
Craig Kelly Afl Wife,
Bloor Homes Conservatories,
Diplomatic Consignment Box Of Money,
Chfa First Time Home Buyer,
Hardy Funeral Home Obituaries,
Articles S
