Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

Relator filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging that his former employer, Abbott, violated the FCA by submitting to Medicare claims by medical providers engaged in the off-label use of Abbott's medical stents. The district court dismissed in part and the jury found against relator in part. The Fifth Circuit held that relator failed to allege details of an Anti-Kickback scheme with sufficient particularity; relator's false inducement claim was properly dismissed under the public disclosure bar; the district court did not err in limiting the time frame of the false presentment theory presented to the jury; the court rejected relator's evidentiary challenges; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting relator's proposed jury instructions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Abbott Laboratories" on Justia Law

KPCC filed suit against KBR, a general contractor supporting the Government's military operations in Iraq, alleging claims for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. At issue was a 2010 contract for, inter alia, KBR's leasing, with an option to purchase, a dining facility constructed by KPCC in Iraq. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the political-question doctrine rendered nonjusticiable the contract dispute at issue. Applying de novo review, under the discriminating inquiry required by Baker v. Carr, the court concluded that the claims presented required resolution of contractual disputes for which there existed judicially manageable standards. Therefore, there was no justiciable political question. The court disposed of KBR's remaining claims regarding the act-of-state doctrine and regarding a contractor's defense from its strict execution of a constitutionally authorized government order. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded. View "Kuwait Pearls Catering Co. WLL v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc." on Justia Law

BP built and maintained the Atlantis Platform, a semi-submersible floating oil production facility located in the Gulf of Mexico. Plaintiff Keith Abbott, employed by BP in the Atlantis administrative offices, filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(2), claiming that BP falsely certified compliance with various regulatory requirements. While DOI was investigating Atlantis, Abbott amended his complaint to add Food & Water Watch as a plaintiff and included additional claims for violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for BP on all claims. In this case, plaintiffs' FCA claims centered on whether engineers approved the various stages of construction of Atlantis. The court explained that these facts failed to create an issue of fact as to materiality given the particular circumstances in plaintiffs' case. In light of Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, when the DOI decided to allow Atlantis to continue drilling after a substantial investigation into plaintiffs' allegations, that decision represented "strong evidence" that the requirements in those regulations were not material. In regard to plaintiffs' OCSLA claims, the court concluded that plaintiffs lack standing because they failed to plead individualized injuries. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Abbott v. BP Exploration & Production" on Justia Law

The Government alleged, in this civil enforcement action, that KBR was liable for kickbacks knowingly accepted by two of its employees. On remand, the district court held KBR liable under Section 8706(a)(1) of the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. 8701-07. The court held that the proper test for imputing knowledge under Section 8706(a)(1) is that corporations are liable only for the knowing violations of those employees whose authority, responsibility, or managerial role within the corporation is such that their knowledge is imputable to the corporation. In this case, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Robert Bennett possessed sufficient authority and responsibility to impute his knowledge to KBR. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in holding KBR liable for kickbacks by Robert, nor in determining that the Government's claims related to the relators' qui tam complaint. However, the district court clearly erred in finding that James Bennett's limited authority was sufficient to impute his knowledge to KBR. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in state court against Crane and 24 other defendants to recover injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos. After removal to federal district court, the district court remanded to state court. The court concluded that the military specifications and affidavits at issue provide a not-insubstantial and non-frivolous basis upon which Crane may assert government-contractor immunity. The court concluded, under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), that the facts in the record before it are sufficient to establish that Crane was “acting under” the Navy. In this case, Crane has established the requisite causal nexus between the charged conduct and its official authority. The court explained that Crane’s relationship with Zeringue derives solely from its official authority to provide parts to the Navy, and that official authority relates to Crane’s allegedly improper actions, namely its use of asbestos in those parts. Because Crane has established the right to remove the suit pursuant to section 1442, the court need not determine whether Crane independently established the right to remove Zeringue’s failure to warn claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Zeringue v. Allis-Chalmers Corp." on Justia Law

Relator-appellee Jeffrey Simoneaux brought a qui tam action against his former employer, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company ("duPont"), under the False Claims Act ("FCA"). He contended that duPont had violated the reverse-false-claims provision by concealing an obligation to pay the United States a penalty arising from alleged violations of the Toxic Sub-stances Control Act ("TSCA"). He also averred that duPont had retaliated against him in violation of the FCA. DuPont unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on both claims, and the Fifth Circuit permitted an interlocutory appeal. Because duPont had no “obligation” to pay the United States, the Court reversed and remanded the denial of summary judgment on the reverse false claim. With respect to the retaliation claim, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Simoneaux v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the City's contract with Ambac to provide municipal bond insurance. The City filed suit against Ambac alleging that Ambac breached an agreement to provide a credit enhancement, that there was error in the principal cause, that Ambac acted in bad faith, and that the City had detrimentally relied on Ambac’s representations and assurances regarding the value of its credit enhancement product. The district court granted Ambac's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing the City's breach of contract claim because the district court properly interpreted the Policy and because the City’s argument that it created a written and oral contract with Ambac for credit enhancement is not plausible based on the facts alleged. The court also concluded that any error about what the City was purchasing when it paid Ambac in excess of six million dollars was a unilateral error by the City because of the clear language of the Policy, and any unilateral error by the City about what it was purchasing from Ambac was not reasonable or excusable. Because the City’s proffered error is unreasonable, it does not vitiate consent. Because the City has failed to establish the existence of a larger credit enhancement agreement between it and Ambac, the City’s bad faith claim concerning this purported agreement necessarily fails. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the City's detrimental reliance claim where the City and Ambac are sophisticated parties that engaged in arm’s length negotiations with respect to this bond offering. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "New Orleans City v. AMBAC Assurance Corp." on Justia Law