service employees international inc, kbr

at 50407, 108 S.Ct. 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. 2d at 709 (citing O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. , 340 U.S. 504, 507, 71 S.Ct. All rights reserved. KBR is a signatory to the LOGCAP IV contract, (Docket Entry No. Here, the court has few, if any, facts about the relationship between the plaintiffs and KBR. My name is [indiscernible], I will be your moderator for today's call. We follow this text today, and decline to manufacture such flexibility, even if it may raise statute of limitations problems for certain FCA relators. This Court reviews a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Carson, 851 F.3d at 302. KBR removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, the plaintiffs moved to remand, and KBR moved to dismiss. 8. Flanagan's declaration, submitted by KBR, states that the Army was responsible for establishing the "defense procedures and force protection postures" that applied to military and civilian personnel at the Al Asad base. P. 8(a)(2). 483 (1951) ). WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. This test states that "[d]uring wartime, where a private service contractor is integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority, a tort claim arising out of the contractor's engagement in such activities shall be preempted." 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. 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. Saleh , 580 F.3d at 7. World Airways, Inc. , 338 F.2d 319, 322 (5th Cir. State tort law significantly conflicts with this unique federal interest when the military has at least some control over the military contractor's allegedly tortious actions. First, as an out-of-circuit decision, Gadbois cannot constitute controlling law in this Circuit. 97-CV-1408, 1999 WL 33290613, at *1 (W.D. Claimant began working for employer in Iraq as a heavy truck driver in January 2005 and later became a convoy commander. In Fisher , the Fifth Circuit addressed similar claims. Harm in these scenarios might be the product of U.S. military decisions. 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. Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023. Region Assigned: Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter II), 710 F.3d 171, 17476 (4th Cir. Adjusted free cash flows1. The defendant may file a motion for summary judgment no later than September 17, 2021. Id. 2015). The lead-up to Carter's second-quoted statement confirms that the Court was only using the description live to mean not time-barred. See id. The KBR's motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. {Kbr In Iraq}: Deliver water in tractor tank at a military base in Iraq What they like about Service Employee International,Inc. Feb. 8, 1999). v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2169 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2510. The threshold issues are whether the claims belong in federal court and whether there are viable claims at all. See McBurney v. Young, 667 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. See Burn Pit Litig. The plaintiffs were working under a predecessor to the LOGCAP IV contract at issue here. 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. 1955 ). Saleh , 580 F.3d at 9 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. 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. The plaintiffs sued KBR in Texas state court for negligence and gross negligence, alleging that KBR was "aware of the heightened risk of a strike in the face of escalating regional violence," but "left [the] Plaintiffs and the other employees of Service Employees International at the base, in direct risk of substantial harm." Carter appealed the dismissal of the Carter Action to this Court. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 17781. 2d at 710. Gadbois v. PharMerica Corp., 809 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. Id. 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." While KBR did not directly employ the plaintiffs, it was a party to the LOGCAP IV contract. at 60); United States ex rel. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. at 7, 11). 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. Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. Webhalliburton co.; kellogg brown & root services, inc.; service employees international inc.; kbr, inc., respondents. Off. 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." Full title:KEVIN CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 198 n.15 (4th Cir. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), to determine whether a Federal Tort Claims Act exception preempts state law. 2014). But see United States v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., No. 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. Second, Gadbois is factually distinguishable. On remand, Carter objected to the applicability of the first-to-file rule. At the time the Carter Action was brought, two allegedly related actions were already pending: United States ex rel. 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. at 5.2). Additionally, the district court held that all but one of the Carter Action's claims fell outside the applicable six-year statute of limitations on civil actions. Create an account and take our The Third, Fourth, and D.C. This suggests that Congress intended to give government contractors less than the full immunity enjoyed by the government. 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. See State Farm Fire & Cas. 7. 2045, 76 L.Ed.2d 194 (1983) ); see Davila-Perez v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 202 F.3d 464, 468 (1st Cir. The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, by Zoom. 2d at 663 ; cf. Region 16, Fort Worth, Texas. 2005); Grynberg v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co., 390 F.3d 1276, 1279 (10th Cir. , 744 F.3d at 348 ; Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 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."). See Heavin v. Mobil Oil Expl. 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." Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 3730(b)(5). The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs claims were barred under the Defense Base Act. 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. KBR did not clarify the relationship among KBR, Service Employees International, and the LOGCAP IV contract. Id. 2010), rev'd on other grounds , 667 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. WebCajetan Okeh v. Service Employees International (2014) Jeremy Stokes v. Service Employees International, Inc. (2014) James Breashears v. Brown and Root See Gadbois, 809 F.3d at 46. Research & Policy Director Service Employees International Union Local (Former Employee) - San Jose, CA - March 12, 2020. 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. Co. v. Dir. II. Defendant Service Employees International, Inc. ("SEI"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands with its principal place of business in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. 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. The Court held that the first-to-file rule does not keep later actions out of court in perpetuity, id. Corporate Governance KBR's The term "suggests that [the combatant-activities] immunity is quite broad." The court added that, in any event, it found Gadbois unpersuasive. Carter, in effect, reads the Court's statement to mean that an earlier suit bars the continuation of a later suit while the earlier suit remains undecided but ceases to bar the continuation of that suit once it is dismissed. This reading would empower courts conducting a first-to-file analysis to take into account the dismissals of an action giving rise to a relator's first-to-file problems. 3), is denied. 2010) case opinion from the District of Oregon U.S. Federal District Court 3730(b)(5). filed June 5, 2007) (the Maryland Action), and a sealed action filed in Texas in 2007 (the Texas Action). 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." Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292 (citation omitted). Burn Pit Litig. 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.). Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 (quoting Morrison-Knudsen Constr. 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. 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 purpose behind the combatant-activities exceptionpreventing courts from second-guessing military decisionsdoes not require preempting torts that stem from purely private actions. 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. Co., 853 F.3d 80, 8586 (2d Cir. O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. The plaintiffs do not describe the type of work they performed at the Al Asad base. 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. 8:07-cv-1487 (D. Md. at 21 n.8a question that has divided district courts in this circuit and around the country, see United States ex rel. Revenue of $1.7 billion, up 18% on an ex-OAW 1 year-over-year-basis. See Ruppel v. CBS Corp. , 701 F.3d 1176, 1181 (7th Cir. (citing McGee v. Arkel Int'l, LLC , 716 F.Supp.2d 572, 577 (S.D. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. Servs., Inc. , No. We then addressed the first-to-file rule. This view aligns with the exception's text, which states that the exception applies to "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities." 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. The plaintiffs do not allege that Iran attacked them out of "personal animosity" or for "purely personal reasons." Id. 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. The Ninth Circuit and D.C. Burn Pit Litig. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 440 (2016); 31 U.S.C. 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. 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. KB&RS is the operating company and contracting entity for KBRs Government and Circuit approaches and instead following, as the more persuasive, the Third and Fourth Circuit reasoning. 2d at 663. See Smith v. Clark/Smoot/Russell, 796 F.3d 424, 430 (4th Cir. WebOther than its ultimate parent (KBR, Inc.), Service Employees International, Inc. does not have any publicly traded affiliates. at 44243 (citing 31 U.S.C. The plaintiffs claims are associated with acts taken under color of federal office. Courts have disagreed, however, about when state tort law has the potential to conflict with military decisions during wartime. As discussed below, KBR asserts colorable federal defenses under the Defense Base Act and the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Discovery on these defenses will close on August 27, 2021. For support, Carter cited United States ex rel. 2000). 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. 5. (Docket Entry No. 3730(b)(1). Tex. 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. 902(2). The combatant-activities exception is part of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which does not "provide immunity to nongovernmental actors." 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. 3729(a)(1). 1955 ). 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. Without more information in the record, the court cannot reliably or accurately determine whether the plaintiffs were engaged in combatant activities. FED. See Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216, 1221 (2013) (describing the interests of defendants that are advanced by statutes of limitations). 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. 2d at 714, and "the extent to which [the contractor] was integrated into the military chain of command," Burn Pit Litig. 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." 28 U.S.C. 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. 1442. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. 1955 ). 3730(b)(5). Va. Dec. 12, 2011) (citation omitted). Id. Liability under the FCA is no small matter. 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." SEII and KBR were affiliated companies that were bothsubsidiariesofHalliburton,Inc. 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. Se., Inc. , 913 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. Carter asserts that our prior holding that a first-to-file analysis turns on the set of facts existing at the time an FCA action was commenced has been undermined by the Supreme Court's intervening decision in this case. (Docket Entry No. 33 U.S.C. Webkbr, inc. and services employees international, inc., defendants.))))) WebKBR was created in 1998 when M.W. In this case, the plaintiffs are suing the parent company of their employer; in Fisher , the plaintiffs sued their employer and other affiliated entities. 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. However, the Maryland Action was dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas Action was dismissed in March 2012. Subsequently, Carter requested reconsideration of the district court's ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 2012) ("We liberally construe this term."). "); Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Ins. 11-cv-602 (E.D. no. 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 removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper." 10-CV-5645, 2017 WL 1233991, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Va. filed June 2, 2011). Marcus Raymond Spagnoletti, State Bar Information, Eric Jonathan Rhine, Spagnoletti Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. This reasoning by the Supreme Court confirms that the only appropriate response for a first-to-file rule violation is dismissal. Service Employees International/KBR Technical Services Inc. E-File Follow Case Number: 16-CA-024700 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Status: Closed Location: Unfortunately, KBR decided to ignore the unambiguous threats of retaliation levied by Iran following the death of General Qassem Soleimani. Thus, we reversed the district court's holding that the claims in the Carter Action were time-barred. 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. Carter contends that the first and third bases for reconsideration are implicated in this case. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1188 (9th Cir. This arrangement, Carter contends, conflicts with the Supreme Court's apparent policy preference for interpretations of the FCA that facilitate government recoveries. , 744 F.3d at 348 ("We find the Third Circuit's analysis persuasive and adopt its formulation of the interest at play here.").

Bishop Hayes Catholic School California, Articles S