Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Region Assigned: 2001). The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs claims were barred under the Defense Base Act. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. As such, we conclude that Carter III left the above-described holding intact. Saleh v. Titan Corp. , 580 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 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. See McBurney v. Young, 667 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. The district court's judgments comport with this holding, and they are therefore. The Federal Officer Removal Statute states: "Federal officers may remove cases to federal court that ordinary federal question removal would not reach." 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. 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. 3730(b)(5). 25-1). The Carter Action was not Carter's first attempt to sue KBR under the FCA. 2002). 1955 ). Id. Webkbr, inc. and services employees international, inc., defendants.))))) The court explained that Carter's proposed amendment could not change the fact that the Carter Action was brought in violation of the first-to-file rule. But we all share one goal: to improve the world responsibly and safely. KBR US48242W1062 KBR, INC. (KBR) Add to my list Report Summary Quotes Charts Ratings Company Financials Consensus Revisions Funds Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023 05/01/2023 | 08:30am EDT Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 2010) (quoting Rainwater v. United States, 356 U.S. 590, 592 (1958)). Kevin CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. Carter resists this conclusion, based on unreasonable readings of certain statements from Carter III. The reasons for these rulings are set out below. The district court also rejected Carter's efforts to sidestep the first-to-file rule through amendment. 1955 ). KBR is a signatory to the LOGCAP IV contract, (Docket Entry No. 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. Harris , 724 F.3d at 481. We affirm. The Court held that the first-to-file rule does not keep later actions out of court in perpetuity, id. In Rigsby, the Supreme Court considered whether a violation of the FCA provision mandating that relators file their complaints under seal could only be sanctioned with dismissal. 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. A complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Because the Carter Action violated the first-to-file rule, and because the only remedy for such a violation is dismissal, the district court was correct to dismiss the Carter Action. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), to determine whether a Federal Tort Claims Act exception preempts state law. 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. Army."). United Bus. Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292. Revenue of $1.7 billion, up 18% on an ex-OAW 1 year-over-year-basis. See United States ex rel. UNITED STATES BENJAMIN CARTER v. HALLIBURTON CO KELLOGG BROWN ROOT SERVICES INC SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC KBR INC. Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp., 809 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. Circuits have adopted this test, breaking it into two prongs: (1) "whether the contractor is integrated into the military's combatant activities" and (2) "whether the contractor's actions were the result of the military's retention of command authority." Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292 (citation omitted). 902(4) ; see also Fisher , 703 F. Supp. Revenue of $1.7 billion, up 18% on an ex-OAW 1 year-over-year-basis. 2014) ; Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 724 F.3d 458, 479 (3d Cir. 2019). Service Employees International/KBR Technical Services Inc. E-File Follow Case Number: 16-CA-024700 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Status: Closed Location: Such notice is already principally provided by first-filed actions. 2007) (alterations omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. 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. Other courts have found this too broad. The plaintiffs do not allege that Iran attacked them out of "personal animosity" or for "purely personal reasons." 2014). For support, Carter cited United States ex rel. The FCA imposes liability for knowingly presenting false or fraudulent claims to the government of the United States for payment or approval. 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. "); Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 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. Willingham v. Morgan , 395 U.S. 402, 407, 89 S.Ct. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14, Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. 2005); Grynberg v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 390 F.3d 1276, 1279 (10th Cir. I work in Iraq for KBR and am paid by Service Employees Int"l in Dubai, UAE. Int'l , 986 F.2d 1103, 1104 (7th Cir. KBR subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. Having discussed how this Court decides whether the first-to-file rule has been violated, we now turn to analyzing the sanction for a first-to-file violation. United States v. Dozier, 848 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. In 2013, while the Supreme Court was still considering Carter's petition for certiorari, Carter refiled his complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court, however, dismissed Carter's 2013 complaint on first-to-file grounds, because it was brought while the Carter Action was still pending before the Supreme Court. 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. 3:2009cv00632 - Document 44 (D. Or. Because it did not have to reach the issue, the district court reserved judgment on whether the Texas Action also precluded the Carter Action. See Ruppel v. CBS Corp. , 701 F.3d 1176, 1181 (7th Cir. (Docket Entry No. 12-1497), 2013 WL 4541112. 2014)). 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. KBR also meets the second prong, which is liberally construed. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610. Harm in these scenarios might be the product of U.S. military decisions. See Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 ; see also Garcia v. Amfels, Inc. , 254 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. 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." 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. Soodavar v. Unisys Corp., 178 F. Supp. Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense Relator's proposed amendment, however, did not reference, in any way, the first-to-file bar or the dismissal of the two earlier-filed, related actions. 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. at 1978. 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. 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. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("We agree with the Johnson court's reasoning and adopt its test here."). This view aligns with the exception's text, which states that the exception applies to "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities." The declaration, however, does not make clear whether the plaintiffs and Service Employees International performed the same functions as KBR. Workers Comp. Id. 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. 2009) ). Ass'n Cas. Id. (Id. 2301, 168 L.Ed.2d 42 (2007) ; see also Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 291 ("[The contractor's] status as a person and its federal contract with the Navy satisfy the first and second conditions. KBR did not clarify the relationship among KBR, Service Employees International, and the LOGCAP IV contract. To determine whether the combatant-activities exception preempts a state tort claim, courts apply the "command-authority" test. 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. 11-cv-602 (E.D. The Act does not define "employer." Thus, we reversed the district court's holding that the claims in the Carter Action were time-barred. 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. Simply put, Carter was ineligible for relief on a motion for reconsideration, and thus the district court did not err in denying him such relief. 1-5 at 4). (Docket Entry No. Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. Discovery on these defenses will end August 27, 2021. WebService Employees International, Inc. (SEII) through KBR to work as an electrician in Afghanistan. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2169 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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. Finally, we note that KBR is not without policy arguments of its own. 1980). See In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig. This procedure enables the government to investigate the matter, so that it may decide whether to take over the relator's action or to instead allow the relator to litigate the action in the government's place. Carter contends that the first and third bases for reconsideration are implicated in this case. World Airways, Inc. , 338 F.2d 319, 322 (5th Cir. Please select your preferred language. At the same time, we must adhere to the statutory provisions and limitations that Congress put into place in pursuit of that goal. 1291. (Docket Entry No. Put another way, [o]ne brings' an action by commencing suit. United States ex rel. 1-1 at 5.2, 5.39). Va. Dec. 12, 2011) (citation omitted). 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." 1-5 at 49). Carter v. Halliburton Co. (the Carter Action), No. 2014), which held that even when [a] District Court lacks jurisdiction over a claim at the time of its original filing, a supplemental complaint may cure the defect by alleging the subsequent fact which eliminates the jurisdictional bar. Rather than resolving those questions, the majority opinion simply holds that a proposed amendment or supplement to a complaint cannot cure a first-to-file defect when the amendment or supplement does not reference the dismissal of publicly disclosed, earlier-filed related actions. All rights reserved. The plaintiffs allege that KBR was not a party to the LOGCAP IV contract. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 17781. Following dismissal of all earlier-filed, related actions, Relator sought leave to amend his complaint to avoid preclusion under the first-to-file bar. Off. 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. However, the Maryland Action was dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas Action was dismissed in March 2012. The Third and Fourth Circuits agree that the purpose of the combatant-activities exception is to "foreclose state regulation of the military's battlefield conduct and decisions." Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter IV), 612 F. App'x 180 (4th Cir. In workmen's compensation statutes, the phrase "arising out of" "denote[s] any causal relationship."