KBR Satellite, Ground Systems & Space Communications, Scientific Research & Laboratory Services, Earth, Environment & Space Science Monitoring, Noise, Vibration & Fluid Dynamics Engineering, Floating Production, Storage & Offloading (FPSO) Facilities, Commercial Cloud & Mission Service Platform, Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning. 902(4) ; see also Fisher , 703 F. Supp. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 183. (Docket Entry No. World Airways, Inc. , 338 F.2d 319, 322 (5th Cir. The court added that all of the Carter Action's claims would fall outside the limitations period if Carter were to refile his action. 1651(c) ); see also Flying Tiger Lines, Inc. v. Landy , 370 F.2d 46, 52 (9th Cir. at *812 & n.11. 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 False Claims Act (FCA) empowers private individuals acting on behalf of the government to bring civil actions against those that defraud the government. Having concluded that the above-described decision was correct, we cannot agree with Carter's argument. 3730(b)(1). WebWe are the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a union of about 2 million diverse members in healthcare, the public sector and property services who believe in and fight for See id. Change the World! 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. In Fisher , the Fifth Circuit addressed similar claims. 3730(b)(5). See Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436. We may affirm on any ground apparent from the record before us. They made an honest effort to make sure their employees Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. See Heavin v. Mobil Oil Expl. 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 Supreme Court granted certiorari, and then affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court's decision. Based on the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the court finds no basis to remand, and denies the motion to dismiss. The threshold issues are whether the claims belong in federal court and whether there are viable claims at all. 10-CV-5645, 2017 WL 1233991, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. KBR's motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 5.39). Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. WebInc. Webkbr, inc. and services employees international, inc., defendants.))))) See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. The Supreme Court, moreover, expressed agreement with this Court's rejection of dismissal with prejudice in this case, and it did not qualify this expression of agreement with the significant caveat that it disagreed with this Court's instruction of dismissal without prejudice. Aiello , 751 F. Supp. at 180. Courts look to contract terms, Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 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. Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. 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. KBR, Inc. (KBR) Q1 2023 Earnings Call Transcript Tex. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 04, 2021 FOR Without more information in the record, the court cannot reliably or accurately determine whether the plaintiffs were engaged in combatant activities. See Ross v. DynCorp , 362 F. Supp. Co. , 920 F.3d 890, 900 (5th Cir. If the contractor has significant discretion in the way it performs its duties, the military does not retain command authority. This reasoning by the Supreme Court confirms that the only appropriate response for a first-to-file rule violation is dismissal. "); Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 3730(b)(5). 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. 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. 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. 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. See United States ex rel. United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. The reasons for these rulings are set out below. KBR Circuit follow two different paths. 1657, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981) ; Jefferson County v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. 1-1 at 5.39). (quotation and citations omitted). 3730(d). The D.C. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. In this case, the plaintiffs are suing the parent company of their employer; in Fisher , the plaintiffs sued their employer and other affiliated entities. To define "employer" under the Act, courts have turned to the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act's definition: "an employer any of whose employees are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the navigable waters of the United States." 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. Circuit approaches and instead following, as the more persuasive, the Third and Fourth Circuit reasoning. 11-684-RGA, 2017 WL 63006, at *12 (D. Del. In particular, the majority opinion finds that the district court did not reversibly err in denying Relator leave to amend solely on grounds that his proposed amendment did not address any matters potentially relevant to the first-to-file rule, such as the dismissals of the [earlier-filed, related actions]. Ante at 20. Thus, we reversed the district court's holding that the claims in the Carter Action were time-barred.
