951 F. Supp. 2d 26
D.D.C.2013Background
- Burke, as a relator in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, alleged Record Press overcharged the GPO for printing briefs.
- Plaintiff claimed two invoices violated the contract terms and that Record Press charged ten times the contract rate for collating, trimming, and binding.
- The United States declined intervention; the court unsealed the complaint and allowed service on Record Press.
- Bench trial proceeded; Burke presented testimony from three witnesses including the president of Record Press and a GPO official.
- Record Press contended its invoices complied with the contract; Burke’s damages theories were disputed and limited to the contract terms.
- The court ultimately granted judgment to Record Press, concluding Burke failed to prove false or fraudulent claims or knowingly false records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether Burke proved false or fraudulent claims | Burke overcharged evidenced by contract terms and deceitful rates | Invoices conformed to contract and accordingly were not false | Burke failed to show false claims |
| whether Burke proved scienter | Defendant acted with knowledge or reckless disregard due to overbilling | Rates and invoicing conformed to contract; no fraud or knowledge of false claims | No showing of knowing false claims |
| whether evidence supports FCA liability under contract-based overbilling | Overbilling under contract implies FCA liability even if non-fraudulent on contract terms | Overbilling was contractual and not a false claim; no liability under FCA | No liability under FCA for alleged overbilling |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. DRC, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D.D.C. 2012) (explains FCA elements and scienter standard)
- United States ex rel. Folliard v. Govplace, 2013 WL 1092859 (D.D.C. 2013) (discusses elements of FCA claim and scienter)
- United States ex rel. Brown v. Aramark Corp., 591 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2008) (broad definition of 'claim' under FCA)
- Toyobo Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 811 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2011) (factually or legally false claim theory under FCA)
- United States ex rel. Hood v. Satory Global, Inc., 2013 WL 2274798 (D.D.C. 2013) (discussion of FCA liability and contract context)
- Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 447 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (standards for proving FCA claims in docket)