Schmit v. ITT F. Elec. 3730(b)(1). Id. Courts apply a three-step test, derived from Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500, 507, 108 S.Ct. Our History With this understanding in mind, we reiterate the conclusion of our initial decision in this case. 1955 ). See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. We therefore remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. at 883. 25-2). 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." See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14, Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. The allegations are that there was missile attack that was willful, carried out by third parties, the direct cause of the plaintiffs injuries, and related to the U.S. military's operations in Iraq. KBR US48242W1062 KBR, INC. (KBR) Add to my list Report Summary Quotes Charts Ratings Company Financials Consensus Revisions Funds Transcript : KBR, Inc., Q1 2023 Earnings Call, May 01, 2023 05/01/2023 | 08:30am EDT Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Circuit recognized this by limiting preemption to contractor actions over which "the military retains command authority." The plaintiffs position is that the Defense Base Act does not apply because they did not have a direct employment relationship with KBR. Put another way, [o]ne brings' an action by commencing suit. United States ex rel. (Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 5.2). 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. 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(5). at 50712, 108 S.Ct. Another plaintiff, Andrade, submitted a Claim stating that she was a "Food Service Worker." 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), to determine whether a Federal Tort Claims Act exception preempts state law. 2000). 4. We disagree for two reasons. Servs., Inc. , No. Finally, Carter contests the district court's denial of his Rule 59(e)-based motion for reconsideration. 1991). at 442444. Courts have offered three main views. 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." Thorough consideration should be given to limiting discovery initially to such defenses."). See Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 ; see also Garcia v. Amfels, Inc. , 254 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. 2510. 2015). KBR is a signatory to the LOGCAP IV contract, (Docket Entry No. ). 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. 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. Were proud of our company and our work, and we would be happy to tell you more about it. 2d 698, 709 (S.D.N.Y. (Id. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 1975. 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. KBR, INC., KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICE, INC., KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LTD., and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. On remand, Carter objected to the applicability of the first-to-file rule. Revenue of $1.7 billion, up 18% on an ex-OAW 1 year-over-year-basis. "); Ruppel , 701 F.3d at 1181 (" Acting under covers situations, like this one, where the federal government uses a private corporation to achieve an end it would have otherwise used its own agents to complete."). at 1978. Such notice is already principally provided by first-filed actions. Va. Dec. 12, 2011) (citation omitted). 3730(b)(5). Co. v. United States ex rel. Gadbois only addressed a situation where the relator sought to revise an FCA complaint with information pertaining to the related action that gave rise to the first-to-file defect. P. 8(a)(2). 31, 2017) (collecting cases). 1955 ). 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. (Id. 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. 2014). (Docket Entry No. Fisher , 703 F. Supp. (quotation and citations omitted). 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. BENJAMIN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON CO.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL INC.; KBR, INC., Defendants - Appellees. 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. Together, KBR employees are pushing industries and organizations forward, from our headquarters in Houston, Texas, to Earths orbit and beyond. 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.