The Court then remanded this case for further proceedings. $ 83. 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. Having concluded that the above-described decision was correct, we cannot agree with Carter's argument. Soodavar v. Unisys Corp., 178 F. Supp. Financial Highlights for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2023. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. More is needed. 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. Around here, we define the future. We are a company of innovators, thinkers, creators, explorers, volunteers and dreamers. But we all share one goal: to improve the world responsibly and safely. Together, KBR employees are pushing industries and organizations forward, from our headquarters in Houston, Texas, to Earths orbit and beyond. O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. 2d 669, 683 (D. Md. 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. 2680(j). at 180. 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. Duprey, 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.). 2011) (citation omitted); Saleh , 580 F.3d at 6. 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. {Kbr In Iraq}: You highly value a work environment built on We may affirm on any ground apparent from the record before us. The basis for our decision to dismiss was our view that Carter had violated the first-to-file rule by bringing the Carter Action while related FCA actions were still pending; the basis for our decision to dismiss without prejudice was our view that Carter could refile his case following the dismissals of earlier-filed, related FCA actions. 2d 639, 663 (S.D. 8. We have previously held otherwise, see Carson, 851 F.3d at 303, and we do not attempt to revisit this Circuit's rule here. Corporate Governance KBR's WebThe Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a socialist, politically powerful labor union with 2 million members in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and the largest 2012) ; see also 42 U.S.C. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter V), 144 F. Supp. 1441(a) ). 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. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 (quoting Morrison-Knudsen Constr. KBR's motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 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. 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. The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, at 10:00 a.m ., by Zoom. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." 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." The declaration, however, does not make clear whether the plaintiffs and Service Employees International performed the same functions as KBR. The district court's judgments comport with this holding, and they are therefore. Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense contractors and related entities that provided logistical services to the United States military during the armed conflict in Iraq. 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. Burn Pit Litig. Id. The Fifth Circuit construes the statute in favor of remand and construes ambiguities against the removing party. Without the contract or other information in the record, the court cannot reliably or accurately determine what kind of work Service Employees International performed at the Al Asad base, much less the level of discretion KBR had over that work. 2001). 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. 3730(b)(5). 2015); 31 U.S.C. WebService Employee International,Inc. For 100 years, KBR has been part of some of the worlds most influential achievements. Contact us. Co., 560 F.3d 371, 378 (5th Cir 2009))). 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. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Please select your preferred language. 11-cv-602 (E.D. 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. (Docket Entry No. Mar. KBR also meets the second prong, which is liberally construed. , 744 F.3d at 351 ; and supplied weapons to vessels fighting in a combat area, Koohi , 976 F.2d at 133637. Although the present record is insufficient for the court to determine whether either or both defenses apply, KBR has asserted a colorable basis to infer that one or both may preempt the plaintiffs claims. WebHighly supportive work environment. (citing McGee v. Arkel Int'l, LLC , 716 F.Supp.2d 572, 577 (S.D. See. KBR removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, the plaintiffs moved to remand, and KBR moved to dismiss. UNITED STATES ex rel. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610. 3730(d). See Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Discovery on these defenses will end August 27, 2021. A Zoom link will be sent to the parties. & Cas. 2013) ; Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 751 F. Supp. Because we need not do so, we decline to comment on the other reasons the district court identified as justifying its rejection of Carter's effort to circumvent dismissal through amendment. 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. Change the World! See McBurney v. Young, 667 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. The plaintiffs motion to remand, (Docket Entry No. (Id. KBR, Inc. (NYSE:NYSE:KBR) Q1 2023 Earnings Conference Call May 1, 2023 8:30 AM ETCompany ParticipantsJamie DuBray - Investor RelationsStuart Bradie - President and 1-1 at 4.3). Net 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. Id. 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. Manguno v. Prudential Prop. Webkbr, inc. and services employees international, inc., defendants.))))) 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. The Ninth Circuit and D.C. Ass'n Cas. Here, the court has few, if any, facts about the relationship between the plaintiffs and KBR. 33 U.S.C. 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. 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. Because it did not have to reach the issue, the district court reserved judgment on whether the Texas Action also precluded the Carter Action. at 5.29, 5.34). The subsequent dismissals of the Maryland and Texas Actions do not alter the fact that Carter brought the Carter Action while factually related litigation remained pending, and those dismissals therefore do not cure the Carter Action's first-to-file defect. KBR satisfies the first prong. The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, by Zoom. 1948) ; Burn Pit Litig. They allege that they were employed by Service Employees International, and that KBR supervises Service Employees International. 1955 ). at 1979 (quoting Pending, Black's Law Dictionary 1314 (10th ed. Although the Carter Action was brought while related FCA actionsnamely the Maryland and Texas Actionswere still pending, Carter argues that the intervening dismissals of the latter actions dictate that the dismissal of the Carter Action on first-to-file grounds was unwarranted. KBR is a signatory to the LOGCAP IV contract, (Docket Entry No. Carter then petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted that petition. The Defense Base Act "includes a provision making an employer's liability under the workers compensation scheme exclusive." Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter IV), 612 F. App'x 180 (4th Cir. As discussed below, KBR asserts colorable federal defenses under the Defense Base Act and the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. at 5960. One exception is for "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war." WebBixby et al v. KBR, Inc. et al, No. Burn Pit Litig. Id. 33 U.S.C. 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 "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." 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. Willingham v. Morgan , 395 U.S. 402, 407, 89 S.Ct. Each step is examined below. In sum, the combatant-activities exception is designed to prevent courts in state tort cases from second-guessing military decisions, after the fact. 1955 ). I work in Iraq for KBR and am paid by Service Employees Int"l in Dubai, UAE. In this case, back before this Court for a third time, we consider whether the first-to-file rule mandates dismissal of a relator's action that was brought while related actions were pending, even after the related actions have been dismissed and the relator's complaint has been amended, albeit without mention of the related actions. 31, 2017) (collecting cases). website until it is completed. See Martin v. Halliburton , 618 F.3d 476, 488 (5th Cir. Co. v. J & J Maint., Inc. , 133 F. Supp. 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. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. The Fisher plaintiffs were military-contractor employees providing logistics and support services in Iraq when insurgents attacked their convoys, injuring them. Harm in these scenarios might be the product of U.S. military decisions. Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. 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 court added that, in any event, it found Gadbois unpersuasive. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 440 (2016); 31 U.S.C. 88, 98 L.Ed. 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. Heath v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112, 11921 (D.C. Cir. Instead, we read the above-described statement as simply providing that an earlier suit bars the bringing of a later suit while the earlier suit remains undecided but ceases to bar the bringing of that suit once it is dismissed. When read in this manner, this Court's holding regarding the temporal dynamics of the first-to-file rule is left undisturbed. 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. United States v. Dozier, 848 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. WebKellogg does not maintain offices or other facilities in Indiana and does not have bank accounts in Indiana. 6. They sustained significant injuries. 2001) ("The LHWCA is a preemption defense. Welcome to KBR.com. Region Assigned: Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Workers Comp. Schmit v. ITT F. Elec. In January 2007, he visited the medical 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. & Prod. , 744 F.3d at 348 ("We find the Third Circuit's analysis persuasive and adopt its formulation of the interest at play here."). 2d at 709 (citing O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. , 340 U.S. 504, 507, 71 S.Ct. Rule 8 "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." State tort law interferes with this purpose when the military exercised some level of control over the contractor's allegedly tortious actions, but not when "the federal government has little or no control over a contractor's conduct." 2d 344, 347 (D.D.C. The Supreme Court in Carter III did not reject, or even comment on, this Court's holding that a court 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. Carter II, 710 F.3d at 183. KBR owns Service Employees International. R. CIV. KBR employs approximately 32,000 people worldwide with customers in more than 80 countries and operations in 33 countries. 28 U.S.C. Courts look to contract terms, Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 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. Circuit follow two different paths. Courts use an expansive definition of "combatant activity" that includes "not only physical violence, but activities both necessary to and in direct connection with actual hostilities." , 744 F.3d at 349. Our precedent on this issue is clear: The first-to-file rule is designed to restrict the bringing of certain types of suits, so when a relator brings an FCA action to court in violation of the first-to-file rule, the court must dismiss the action. Carson, 851 F.3d at 302. Int'l , 986 F.2d 1103, 1104 (7th Cir. Carter argued that the dismissals of the related Maryland and Texas Actions cured any first-to-file defect in the Carter Action. , 744 F.3d at 348 ; Aiello , 751 F. Supp. The threshold issues are whether the claims belong in federal court and whether there are viable claims at all. Discovery on these defenses will close on August 27, 2021. 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. We are a company of innovators, thinkers, creators, explorers, volunteers and dreamers. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter I), No. (Docket Entry Nos. Your download is being prepared. 3:2009cv00632 - Document 44 (D. Or. 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." WebKBR was created in 1998 when M.W. Saleh , 580 F.3d at 9 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. Branch , 924 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 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. 31 U.S.C. 2012) ("We liberally construe this term."). 1. 56, 59 (E.D. 2d at 714, and "the extent to which [the contractor] was integrated into the military chain of command," Burn Pit Litig. 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." Courts apply a three-step test, derived from Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500, 507, 108 S.Ct. Harris , 724 F.3d at 480 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. 2d at 710 ; Saleh , 580 F.3d at 7. (Docket Entry 1-1 at 5.39). 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. WebKBR Technical Services, Inc., Overseas Administration Services, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, the "KBR defendants"), on June 8, 2009. 2. {Kbr In Iraq} Work Values Interested in finding out if you are the type of person this company is looking for? 1955 ). 2007) (alterations omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. The record also shows that KBR's ability to control any civilian personnel, including the plaintiffs, was subject to the U.S. military's control over the Al Asad base, a forward operating base in Iraq. 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. 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. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to explore the potential application of the first-to-file rule. civ. 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." Region 16, Fort Worth, Texas. 2017).1. 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. 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. KBR subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. 2d at 663 ; cf. Today, KBR actively contributes to ongoing projects across North America, Europe, Russia and the Middle East. Based on the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the court finds no basis to remand, and denies the motion to dismiss.
Converted Chapel For Sale Wales,
Articles S