CSILO v. JC Remodeling, Inc., 962 F.3d 34

CSILO, a Puerto Rico non-profit, used ARRA funds to contract with J.C. Remodeling (JCR) in 2010 to waterproof its roof for $135,000; contract promised a 15-year warranty and new materials.
Leaks appeared by 2011; JCR allegedly failed to respond and in 2013 attempted repairs using a different product (Chovatek), which CSILO claims substituted inferior materials and breached the warranty.
CSILO filed a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) suit in 2014; the government declined to intervene. CSILO sought treble damages plus statutory penalties in its amended complaint.
During discovery and in initial disclosures CSILO did not produce a damages computation or include specific damages in the Joint Pretrial Conference Report.
One month before trial, after discovery closed, CSILO moved to amend the Pretrial Order to add an FCA damages claim (seeking treble the $135,000 contract price). The district court denied the motion as untimely and prejudicial; it also denied reconsideration.
Trial proceeded; jury found an FCA violation. Because CSILO was barred from presenting damages evidence, the court assessed the statutory minimum civil penalty ($5,500). CSILO appealed the denial to amend and the denial of reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying CSILO's late request to amend the Pretrial Order to add damages	CSILO: Request was minor; contract price was already in the record and uncontroverted, so no surprise or prejudice; denial causes manifest injustice	JCR: Amendment came three years in, after close of discovery and on eve of trial; would prejudice JCR by depriving discovery and trial preparation on damages	Denial affirmed: court did not abuse discretion given high Rule 16(e) standard, closed discovery, and lack of damages evidence in record
Whether CSILO was entitled as a matter of law to treble the full contract price as FCA damages	CSILO: Treble damages should be based on the $135,000 contract price (three times = $405,000); contract price was litigated and admitted	JCR: FCA damages are not automatically the contract price; damages require proof of the government’s actual loss and value of goods/services delivered	Court: Not persuaded CSILO was automatically entitled to full contract price; full-price awards are limited to cases where government received nothing of measurable value; record lacked evidence to support awarding full contract price
Whether denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion	CSILO: Reconsideration warranted to avoid manifest injustice	JCR: No new law or evidence; original order was sound	Denial affirmed: no manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence to justify reconsideration

U.S. ex rel. Feldman v. van Gorp, 697 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (FCA damages often use benefit-of-the-bargain; full contract price appropriate when government received nothing of value)
U.S. ex rel. Longhi v. Lithium Power Techs., Inc., 575 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2009) (award of full contract price where grantor received no tangible benefit and intangible benefit is incalculable)
United States v. Bornstein, 423 U.S. 303 (1976) (measure of FCA damages is difference between value received and value promised)
United States v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 626 F.3d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (damages equal difference between value of services actually provided and value had services been delivered as promised)
Rodríguez-García v. Miranda-Marín, 610 F.3d 756 (1st Cir. 2010) (final pretrial order controls case; modification permitted only to prevent manifest injustice)
Brook Vill. N. Assocs. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 686 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1982) (high standard for altering pretrial orders to encourage self-editing and fair disclosure)