at 7, 11). R. CIV. Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. 56, 59 (E.D. We disagree. Carter first relies on the Supreme Court's statement that an earlier suit bars a later suit while the earlier suit remains undecided but ceases to bar that suit once it is dismissed. Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 1978. Finally, Carter contests the district court's denial of his Rule 59(e)-based motion for reconsideration. In adopting the FCA, the objective of Congress was broadly to protect the funds and property of the government. United States ex rel. 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. A Zoom link will be sent to the parties. Without more, the court cannot conclude, as a Fisher , 703 F. Supp. 1993) ("The Defense Base Act generally entitles employees at overseas military bases to benefits of the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act[.]"). In workmen's compensation statutes, the phrase "arising out of" "denote[s] any causal relationship." Feb. 8, 1999). Cuvillier v. Taylor , 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. The D.C. Other courts have found this too broad. (quotation and citations omitted). , 744 F.3d at 349. In this case, the plaintiffs are suing the parent company of their employer; in Fisher , the plaintiffs sued their employer and other affiliated entities. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Halliburton Companys stock. 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. 4. & Cas. at 6.3). 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. The attack was allegedly in retaliation for the killing of General Qassem Soleimani. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter VI), 315 F.R.D. On remand, Carter objected to the applicability of the first-to-file rule. In sum, the combatant-activities exception is designed to prevent courts in state tort cases from second-guessing military decisions, after the fact. KBR Rule 8 "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." In June 2011, Carter filed a qui tam complaint against KBR in the Eastern District of Virginia. Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense civ. WebBrown & Root provides engineering consulting services, including project management, operations and maintenance including: Industrial Small-Cap Construction; Installation; Maintenance; Repair; Turnaround services. While the district court's decision was reversed, the multiple-employer issue was not appealed. Fisher v. Halliburton , 667 F.3d 602, 610 (5th Cir. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (the Carter Action), No. (Docket Entry No. Following dismissal of all earlier-filed, related actions, Relator sought leave to amend his complaint to avoid preclusion under the first-to-file bar. 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." 1. We conclude that it does. 1 5 at 4- 9). The Supreme Court, therefore, agreed with this Court's conclusion that dismissal with prejudice of any timely aspect of the Carter Action was improper. The plaintiffs do not allege that Iran attacked them out of "personal animosity" or for "purely personal reasons." P. 8(a)(2). We disagree. 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. KBR had the authority to supervise and evacuate the Service Employees International, Inc. employees. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. at 5.38, 5.39). (Id. Under that rule, [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. Create an account and take our The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, by Zoom. 5 (1953) ; the plaintiffs filed a claim under the Act against KBR, alleging that KBR is its employer, (Docket Entry Nos. 12). Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. "To determine whether jurisdiction is present for removal," the court considers "the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal." However, the Maryland Action was dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas Action was dismissed in March 2012. Financial Highlights for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2023. See United States ex rel. KBR 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. Subsequently, Carter requested reconsideration of the district court's ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Our job is to follow the text even if doing so will supposedly undercut a basic objective of the statute. Baker Botts LLP. We review a denial of leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. See In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig. 2005); Grynberg v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 390 F.3d 1276, 1279 (10th Cir. (Docket Entry Nos. Bell Atl. 2d 344, 347 (D.D.C. 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. FindLaw's United States Fourth Circuit case and opinions. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter II), 710 F.3d 171, 17476 (4th Cir. 2014) ; Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 724 F.3d 458, 479 (3d Cir. 1657, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981) ; Jefferson County v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. Harris , 724 F.3d at 480. 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. The present record does not make clear what work the plaintiffs did or what services they provided at the Al Asad base. 1, 3). 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. Webkbr, inc. and services employees international, inc., defendants.))))) Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. But we all share one goal: to improve the world responsibly and safely. UNITED STATES BENJAMIN CARTER v. HALLIBURTON CO KELLOGG BROWN ROOT SERVICES INC SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC KBR INC. The Carter Action was not Carter's first attempt to sue KBR under the FCA. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 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. Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge. 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 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. United States ex rel. Notably, KBR's petition never questioned this Court's holding that the first-to-file analysis depends on the set of facts in existence at the time an FCA action is filed. 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. 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. 1955 ). Grow. 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. WebKBR Technical Services, Inc., Overseas Administration Services, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, the "KBR defendants"), on June 8, 2009. About KBR KBR is a global engineering, construction and services company supporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power, industrial, civil infrastructure, minerals, Id. See United States ex rel. Halliburton Company is a publicly traded corporation and has no parent company. As such, we conclude that Carter III left the above-described holding intact. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("[T]he extent to which [the defendant] was integrated into the military chain of command is unclear."). 2013) (It is well-established that parties cannot amend their complaint through briefing or oral advocacy.). WebSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC.; KBR, INC., Respondents. $ 16. 2009). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and then affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court's decision. 1998) ("We have previously held that corporate entities qualify as persons under 1442(a)(1)."). Corporate Governance KBR's 31 U.S.C. 2017).1. 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. 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. Workers Comp. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Section 1442(a) permits "any officer of the United States or person acting under [him or her]," 28 U.S.C. Adjusted free cash flows1. (Docket Entry No. We have previously held otherwise, see Carson, 851 F.3d at 303, and we do not attempt to revisit this Circuit's rule here. Aiello , 751 F. Supp. See. Soodavar v. Unisys Corp., 178 F. Supp. 11-00685 ack-bmk order denying defendants motion to dismiss and transferring the case to the united states district court for the southern district of texas, houston division for the following reasons, the court: (1) denies (Id. More is needed. O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. Va. Dec. 12, 2011) (citation omitted). (Docket Entry No. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 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." The plaintiffs do not describe the type of work they performed at the Al Asad base. 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 Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. at 60); United States ex rel. 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. KBR, Inc. (KBR) Q1 2023 Earnings Call Transcript Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Raymond B. Biagini, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, Susan D. Noe Wilson, Schouest, Bamdas, Soshea & BenMaier, PLLC, Houston, TX, for Defendant. at 883. See United States ex rel. 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. Id. Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. 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. 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. FED. WebService Employee International,Inc. 2013) ; Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 751 F. Supp. The court authorizes limited discovery on KBR's Defense Base Act and combatant-activities defenses. (Docket Entry No. 2045, 76 L.Ed.2d 194 (1983) ); see Davila-Perez v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 202 F.3d 464, 468 (1st Cir. "); McGee , 716 F. Supp. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. WebService Employees International performed services for the U.S. Army under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) IV contract. 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." The Fisher plaintiffs were military-contractor employees providing logistics and support services in Iraq when insurgents attacked their convoys, injuring them. The FCA imposes liability for knowingly presenting false or fraudulent claims to the government of the United States for payment or approval. See Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Id. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter IV), 612 F. App'x 180 (4th Cir. Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. A court's lack of discretion when it comes to sanctioning first-to-file violations was underscored in a recent Supreme Court decision. 8. See id. The D.C. 10-CV-5645, 2017 WL 1233991, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. You will be notified when it is ready. I write separately to emphasize the narrow scope of that conclusion. See 31 U.S.C. 15), is denied. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 04, 2021 FOR 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. Circuit follow two different paths. Reading the exception to cover actions against military contractors arising out of events involving U.S. military decisions and actions prevents "second-guessing [of] military judgment." 3730(b)(5)). Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. KBR's maintenance work in Iraq has been criticized after reports of soldiers electrocuted from faulty wiring. Specifically, KBR has been charged by the Army for improper installation of electrical units in bathrooms throughout U.S. bases. 2015). 1291. 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. & Prod. 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." (Id. At the time the Carter Action was brought, two allegedly related actions were already pending: United States ex rel. 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. BENJAMIN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON CO.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC.; KBR, INC., Defendants - Appellees. 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. United States ex rel. 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 Harris , 724 F.3d at 481. 1-5 at 6). 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. Financial Highlights for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2023. Today, KBR actively contributes to ongoing projects across North America, Europe, Russia and the Middle East. 2012) ; see also 42 U.S.C. 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. 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. Working at Service Employees International: 16 Reviews - Indeed 3d 852, 858 (W.D. 2014)). Discovery on these defenses will end August 27, 2021. (Docket Entry No. 2d at 663. Willingham v. Morgan , 395 U.S. 402, 407, 89 S.Ct. 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. The plaintiffs argue that this is enough to distinguish Fisher . WebService Employees International Union (SEIU) is a 501(c)(5) labor union representing over 2 million workers in about 100 occupations in the United States and Canada. The P. 12(b)(6). 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. KB&RS is the operating company and contracting entity for KBRs Government and at 180. 2004); United States ex rel. 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. website until it is completed. Webhalliburton co.; kellogg brown & root services, inc.; service employees international inc.; kbr, inc., respondents. The complaint alleges that Iran attacked the Al Asad base in "retaliation [for] the death of General Qassem Soleimani." 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. In Fisher , the Fifth Circuit addressed similar claims. 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. We affirm. 28 U.S.C. at 5.29, 5.34). {Kbr In Iraq}: Deliver water in tractor tank at a military base in Iraq What they like about Service Employee International,Inc. Courts determine whether the U.S. military has command authority over a contractor by examining the contractor's discretion in performing its duties. 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." 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. 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. Id. 7. Servs., Inc. , No. Please try again. 2680(j). Finally, we note that KBR is not without policy arguments of its own. Web) ) ) ) 2:09-cv-1241 ) ) ) ) memorandum opinion and order of court pending before the court are the motion of kbr, inc., overseas administration services, ltd., and service employees international, inc. to dismiss amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (document no. at 44243 (citing 31 U.S.C. Were proud of our company and our work, and we would be happy to tell you more about it. Because Carter commenced the Carter Action while the Maryland and Texas Actions were still pending, he clearly br[ought] an action while factually related litigation remained pending, 31 U.S.C. Id. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Carter then petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted that petition. FED. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1-5 at 49). KBR did not clarify the relationship among KBR, Service Employees International, and the LOGCAP IV contract. II. Change the World! See Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216, 1221 (2013) (describing the interests of defendants that are advanced by statutes of limitations). 3730(b)(5). 1-5 at 12). 2013). See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 1975. Carter timely noticed an appeal of the district court's rulings dismissing the Carter Action, denying Carter's motion for amendment, and denying Carter's motion for reconsideration. The Court has consistently urged courts to avoid "a narrow, grudging interpretation of 1442(a)(1)." 11-684-RGA, 2017 WL 63006, at *12 (D. Del. Co. , 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. Because the record supports federal jurisdiction, remand is denied. 1442(a)(1), to remove an action, even if the plaintiff's complaint raises no federal question, so long as the officer asserts a "colorable federal defense," Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 291. KBR subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. We then addressed the first-to-file rule. We agreed with the district court that courts must look at the facts as they existed when the claim was brought to determine whether an action is barred by the first-to-file bar. Id. 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. 1-1 at 5.2, 5.39). Carter contends that the first and third bases for reconsideration are implicated in this case. AFIA/CIGNA Worldwide v. Felkner , 930 F.2d 1111, 1112 (5th Cir. Ins. 2d at 664. The district court also rejected Carter's efforts to sidestep the first-to-file rule through amendment. 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. WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. 2d 698, 709 (S.D.N.Y. For 100 years, KBR has been part of some of the worlds most influential achievements. 8:07-cv-1487 (D. Md. 902(4) ; see also Fisher , 703 F. Supp. The subject matter underlying this case involves Appellees'Halliburton Company; KBR, Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively KBR)alleged fraudulent billing of the United States for services provided to the military forces serving in Iraq. 902(2). Koohi v. U.S. , 976 F.2d 1328, 133637 (9th Cir.1992). 3730(b)(5). The allegations are that there was missile attack that was willful, carried out by third parties, the direct cause of the plaintiffs injuries, and related to the U.S. military's operations in Iraq. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. 1937 (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 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. WebDaily Duties at Service Employee International,Inc. United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. (citing McGee v. Arkel Int'l, LLC , 716 F.Supp.2d 572, 577 (S.D. Va. 2015). $ 83. WebSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Employer/Carrier- Respondents Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965). 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. 1-1 at 4.3). 33 U.S.C. 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. Without more information in the record, the court cannot reliably or accurately determine whether the plaintiffs were engaged in combatant activities. Thus, we reversed the district court's holding that the claims in the Carter Action were time-barred. But see United States v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., No. Navy. at 197578. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. Based on the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the court finds no basis to remand, and denies the motion to dismiss. Co., 853 F.3d 80, 8586 (2d Cir. at 181. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Ctr., 816 F.3d 37, 39 (4th Cir. 483 (1951) ). 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]."). Off. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , 951 F.3d 286, 29091 (5th Cir. We follow this text today, and decline to manufacture such flexibility, even if it may raise statute of limitations problems for certain FCA relators. Because it did not have to reach the issue, the district court reserved judgment on whether the Texas Action also precluded the Carter Action. "A party may remove an action from state court to federal court if the action is one over which the federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction." Owens v. First Kuwaiti Gen. Trading & Contracting Co., 612 F.3d 724, 728 (4th 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."