Abbott v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 851 F.3d 384

Kenneth Abbott (relator) worked in BP’s Atlantis administrative offices (2008–2009) and alleged BP made false certifications to the Department of the Interior (DOI) about engineer-approved drawings and other regulatory compliance.
Abbott filed a sealed False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam suit in April 2009; DOI began investigating in May 2009 and Congress held hearings after Abbott’s testimony.
Abbott amended the complaint in 2010 to add Food & Water Watch and OCSLA claims, and pointed to specific certification language and allegedly missing/uncertified “As-Built” drawings.
DOI completed an investigation and issued a 2011 report finding Abbott’s allegations unfounded and concluding Atlantis complied with certification regulations; DOI did not suspend operations or revoke BP’s operator status.
After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for BP on all claims; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BP made false statements or false certifications under the FCA	Abbott contended BP submitted certifications without required engineer approvals and missing "As-Built" markings	BP argued its certifications were valid and DOI’s investigation supported compliance	Court held plaintiffs failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact on falsity/materiality; summary judgment for BP
Whether BP acted with requisite scienter for FCA liability	Plaintiffs asserted intent/recklessness can be inferred from missing stamps and internal procedures	BP relied on DOI findings and lack of government action to show no knowing falsity	Court found scienter unresolved but materiality/causation dispositive; summary judgment upheld
Materiality of regulatory requirements for FCA purposes	Plaintiffs argued the certifications were material to DOI approvals and operations	BP pointed to DOI’s full investigation and continued payment/operation as evidence requirements weren’t material	Applying Escobar, court concluded DOI’s conduct was strong evidence of non-materiality; plaintiffs failed to rebut
Standing for OCSLA claims	Plaintiffs alleged injury from risk of oil spill affecting Gulf users, donors, and Abbott’s Gulf visits	BP argued injuries were generalized and not particularized	Court held plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because alleged harms were generalized, not particularized

United States ex rel. Longhi v. United States, 575 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2009) (elements of an FCA claim)
Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) (demanding materiality standard; government payment despite knowledge is strong evidence of non-materiality)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (clarifying that injuries must be particularized, not generalized)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (standing rejected where injury is shared generally)