service employees international inc, kbr

Second, Gadbois is factually distinguishable. The plaintiffs do not describe the type of work they performed at the Al Asad base. 1813, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969) ; Arizona v. Manypenny , 451 U.S. 232, 242, 101 S.Ct. The plaintiffs allege that they were working for a military contractor at an overseas military base and were injured when a foreign country attacked the base with missiles. The Defense Base Act "includes a provision making an employer's liability under the workers compensation scheme exclusive." 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. Thus, we reversed the district court's holding that the claims in the Carter Action were time-barred. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("The district court therefore erred in resolving this issue before discovery took place."). 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. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. The purpose behind the combatant-activities exceptionpreventing courts from second-guessing military decisionsdoes not require preempting torts that stem from purely private actions. 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. 2d at 663 ; cf. 2019) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. (Docket Entry No. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter IV), 612 F. App'x 180 (4th Cir. 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." An FCA violator may be held responsible for treble damages in addition to civil penalties. (Id. See id. Programs , 461 U.S. 624, 636, 103 S.Ct. at 50407, 108 S.Ct. Soodavar v. Unisys Corp., 178 F. Supp. In his complaint, Carter alleged that KBR had violated the FCA by fraudulently billing the government in connection with its water purification services.2. , 744 F.3d at 348 ; Aiello , 751 F. Supp. The court added that all of the Carter Action's claims would fall outside the limitations period if Carter were to refile his action. Co., 560 F.3d 371, 378 (5th Cir 2009))). 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. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 (citing 42 U.S.C. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. filed June 5, 2007) (the Maryland Action), and a sealed action filed in Texas in 2007 (the Texas Action). Liability under the FCA is no small matter. KBR did not clarify the relationship among KBR, Service Employees International, and the LOGCAP IV contract. at 442444. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 (quoting Morrison-Knudsen Constr. 2017) ). Another plaintiff, Andrade, submitted a Claim stating that she was a "Food Service Worker." Service Employees International/KBR Technical Services Inc. E-File Follow Case Number: 16-CA-024700 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Status: Closed Location: Region 16, Fort Worth, Texas. 2005) ; Carr v. Lockheed Martin Tech. Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. The FCA imposes liability for knowingly presenting false or fraudulent claims to the government of the United States for payment or approval. Id. If the contractor has significant discretion in the way it performs its duties, the military does not retain command authority. This conclusion, we add, was consistent with the conclusions of widespread, pre-Carter III circuit case law. Koohi v. U.S. , 976 F.2d 1328, 133637 (9th Cir.1992). All rights reserved. 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. 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. 2012) ("We liberally construe this term."). Paul Papak OPINION AND This suggests that Congress intended to give government contractors less than the full immunity enjoyed by the government. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter V), 144 F. Supp. Each step is examined below. With this understanding in mind, we reiterate the conclusion of our initial decision in this case. In adopting the FCA, the objective of Congress was broadly to protect the funds and property of the government. United States ex rel. 3730(b)(5). This view aligns with the exception's text, which states that the exception applies to "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities." WebCareers at KBR | KBR job opportunities Belong. Med. Heath v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112, 11921 (D.C. Cir. See Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 296 ("[The government contractor] performed the refurbishment and, allegedly, the installation of asbestos pursuant to directions of the U.S. 12). 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. KBR had the authority to supervise and evacuate the Service Employees International, Inc. employees. Change the World! Subsequently, Carter requested reconsideration of the district court's ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Schmit v. ITT F. Elec. 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. 2015). 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. 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. At the same time, we must adhere to the statutory provisions and limitations that Congress put into place in pursuit of that goal. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. at 4). FED. Three employees of a contractor working on an American military base in Iraq have sued the contractor's parent company, alleging that it is responsible for the injuries they received when Iranian ballistic missiles struck the base in January 2020. P. 12(b)(6). 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 third prong is also met. Other courts have found this too broad. 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. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 17781. 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. KBR may file a motion for summary judgment on the Defense Base Act and combatant-activities exceptions no later than September 17, 2021. at 1978 (explaining that because at least one claim [may be] timely on remand, the Court must consider whether [Carter's] claims must be dismissed with prejudice under the first-to-file rule). Adjusted free cash flows1. Please try again. Co. , 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 4. The plaintiffs allege that they were employed by Service Employees International and worked at the Al Asad base, but without further information. Kevin Cloyd, Nickalandra Witherspoon, and Lucille Andrade were employed by Service Employees International and working at the Al Asad base when the attack occurred. II. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. 28 U.S.C. Without more, the court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that KBR does, or does not, qualify as the plaintiffs employer under the Defense Base Act. The Supreme Court held that, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the term pending, a qui tam suit under the FCA ceases to be pending once it is dismissed. Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 197879. The district court also rejected Carter's efforts to sidestep the first-to-file rule through amendment. at 44243 (citing 31 U.S.C. We therefore remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. 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. See Heavin v. Mobil Oil Expl. BENJAMIN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON CO.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC.; KBR, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. Welcome to KBR.com. Courts look to contract terms, Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 11-684-RGA, 2017 WL 63006, at *12 (D. Del. 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 See Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436. Your download is being prepared. KBR holds all leaders and employees to the highest standards of business and personal integrity, abiding by the strictest ethical and legal standards. Fisher v. Halliburton , 667 F.3d 602, 610 (5th Cir. Saleh , 580 F.3d at 7. On this record, the court cannot conclude as a matter of law that KBR and Service Employees International were, or were not, under military command authority. More is needed. 902(2). (Docket Entry 1-1 at 5.39). 2013) ; Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 751 F. Supp. They made an honest effort to make sure their employees R. CIV. 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. Courts have had little trouble concluding that the federal government has a unique federal interest in "the management of wars." {Kbr In Iraq}: You highly value a work environment built on "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." Co. v. Dir. Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ("KB&RS"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. In 2013, while the Supreme Court was still considering Carter's petition for certiorari, Carter refiled his complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia. Financial Highlights for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2023. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 440 (2016); 31 U.S.C. This reasoning by the Supreme Court confirms that the only appropriate response for a first-to-file rule violation is dismissal. While the district court's decision was reversed, the multiple-employer issue was not appealed. 10). Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge. Id. 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. The declaration, however, does not make clear whether the plaintiffs and Service Employees International performed the same functions as KBR. Here, the court has few, if any, facts about the relationship between the plaintiffs and KBR. at 183. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("We agree with the Johnson court's reasoning and adopt its test here."). We likewise review a denial of a motion for reconsideration under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. 3730(b)(5). 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. Although designed to incentivize whistleblowers, the FCA also seeks to prevent parasitic lawsuits based on previously disclosed fraud. United States ex rel. For support, Carter cited United States ex rel. 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. 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. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Circuit recognized this by limiting preemption to contractor actions over which "the military retains command authority." 3d 869, 873 (E.D. 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. As discussed below, KBR asserts colorable federal defenses under the Defense Base Act and the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 2d at 664. Find your next opportunity: Search for Job Title We are All In All In brings together our Inclusion and 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. Such notice is already principally provided by first-filed actions. 1-5 at 4), and owns Service Employees International. at 5.37, 5.38). 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. Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc. , 551 U.S. 142, 154, 127 S.Ct. , 744 F.3d at 348 ; Aiello , 751 F. Supp. The False Claims Act's first-to-file bar provides that [w]hen a person brings an action under [the False Claims Act], 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. They allege that they were employed by Service Employees International, and that KBR supervises Service Employees International. We follow this text today, and decline to manufacture such flexibility, even if it may raise statute of limitations problems for certain FCA relators. The only court to apply this test in a Defense Base Act case did so on a summary judgment motion. WebBixby et al v. KBR, Inc. et al, No. civ. Carter resists this conclusion, based on unreasonable readings of certain statements from Carter III. 3-1 at 1 n.1). 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]."). III purposes." WebBrown & Root provides engineering consulting services, including project management, operations and maintenance including: Industrial Small-Cap Construction; Installation; Maintenance; Repair; Turnaround services. Mar. 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. 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. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Carter also filed a motion to amend the Carter Action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), and argued that an amendment would confirm the inapplicability of the first-to-file rule to the Carter Action. 1, 3). Finally, we note that KBR is not without policy arguments of its own. (Docket Entry No. 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.). 1657, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981) ; Jefferson County v. Acker , 527 U.S. 423, 431, 119 S.Ct. 3730(d). Carter then petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted that petition. Unfortunately, KBR decided to ignore the unambiguous threats of retaliation levied by Iran following the death of General Qassem Soleimani. , 744 F.3d at 348. Va. 2016). WebKBR Technical Services, Inc., Overseas Administration Services, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, the "KBR defendants"), on June 8, 2009. 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." The court authorizes limited discovery on KBR's Defense Base Act and combatant-activities defenses. 2000). Put another way, [o]ne brings' an action by commencing suit. United States ex rel. With respect to the first basis for reconsideration, Carter claims that the 2015 Gadbois decisionwhere the First Circuit held that an FCA action's first-to-file defect can be cured by a Rule 15(d) supplement clarifying that an earlier-filed, related action that gave rise to the defect has been dismissedconstitutes an intervening change in controlling law. KBR highlighted other decisions suggesting that parent companies qualify as employers under the Act, but these were decisions on summary judgment motions, not motions to dismiss. 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. 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. WebKBR was created in 1998 when M.W. 3730(b)(5)). at 616, 617 ("We think it self-evident that driving trucks in Iraq in support of United States military operations augmented the probability that Plaintiffs would fall victim to an attack by insurgent forces, and that the character of Plaintiffs employmentproviding support services to an occupying military forceincreased the likelihood that Plaintiffs would be targeted by forces opposed to the United States presence in Iraq in 2004."). Co., 853 F.3d 80, 8586 (2d Cir. 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. The court will allow limited discovery on KBR's Defense Base Act defense. The term "suggests that [the combatant-activities] immunity is quite broad." 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. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610. 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. WebService Employees International, Inc. (SEII) through KBR to work as an electrician in Afghanistan. Harris , 724 F.3d at 481. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. , 744 F.3d at 347 (applying the Saleh test); Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 (same). Kevin CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. 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. WebKBR holds all leaders and employees to the highest standards of business and personal integrity, abiding by the strictest ethical and legal standards. Servs., Inc. , No. 3:2009cv00632 - Document 44 (D. Or. 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. Chovanec v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., 606 F.3d 361, 362 (7th Cir. Together, KBR employees are pushing industries and organizations forward, from our headquarters in Houston, Texas, to Earths orbit and beyond. In 2006, the company separated from Halliburton and completed a successful initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange. See. at 6.3). $ 83. Ass'n Cas. 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. The D.C. Webkbr, inc. and services employees international, inc., defendants.))))) 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. But we all share one goal: to improve the world responsibly and safely. 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. This arrangement, Carter contends, conflicts with the Supreme Court's apparent policy preference for interpretations of the FCA that facilitate government recoveries. Burn Pit Litig. Id. 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." Circuit follow two different paths. KBR also meets the second prong, which is liberally construed. 25-3); and the plaintiffs have alleged that KBR had control over them, (Docket Entry No. KBR subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. (Id. 2d at 710. Co. , 149 F.3d 387, 398 (5th Cir. 6. We affirm. 2014)). Having concluded that the above-described decision was correct, we cannot agree with Carter's argument. The Third, Fourth, and D.C. 1955 ). Research & Policy Director Service Employees International Union Local (Former Employee) - San Jose, CA - March 12, 2020. United States v. Dozier, 848 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. See State Farm Fire & Cas. 3d 358, 37374 (E.D. The Ninth Circuit and D.C. 1-1 at 5.1, 5.36). 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. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Halliburton Companys stock. 3730(b)(5). 2013). at 5.2). 1991). 1966) ("[T]he coverage provisions of the Defense Base Act clearly evidence the intent that the act shall afford the sole remedy for injuries or death suffered by employees in the course of employments which fall within its scope."). Navy. 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.").

Richard Fitzpatrick Obituary, Claw Zone Sauce Recipe, Is Teeth Whitening Covered By Medicaid, What Does Set In Sterling Silver Mean, Articles S