Nyle Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
688 F.3d 1037
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hooper filed aqui tam under FCA against Lockheed for RSA IIA program at Vandenberg and Cape Kennedy.
- FCA claims include false bidding, undisclosed freeware (FOSS), and defective testing; retaliation claim under §3730(h).
- Suit originally filed in Maryland, transferred to the Central District of California on forum non conveniens grounds; district court granted summary judgment for Lockheed.
- Hooper alleges Lockheed underbid knowingly and used false cost estimates to obtain the contract; asserts FOSS disclosures and testing procedures were improper.
- Air Force approved disclosed FOSS uses; Hooper did not work on the RSA IIA bid; testing observations occurred with Air Force access.
- Court reverses in part and remands, holding Maryland three-year statute applies and issues of false estimates and knowledge require trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forum-state statute governs limitations for FCA retaliation | Hooper (Hooper) argues Maryland three-year period should apply | Lockheed argues California two-year period applies | Maryland three-year statute applies and remand granted |
| Whether false estimates/underbidding can support FCA liability | False estimates can be FCA liability if other elements met | Estimates are opinion; not actionable | False estimates can be source of liability under the FCA |
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on fraudulent underbidding and knowledge standard | Hooper showed evidence Lockheed instructed to lower bids; knowledge shown | District court applied wrong standard or found no knowledge | Genuine issue of material fact; remand for trial on knowledge standard |
| Whether the district court correctly excluded certain evidence and expert testimony | Exclusion of Braun deposition, documents, and Dr. Gray report prejudiced Hooper | District court acted within discretion; no abuse | Evidentiary rulings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (change of venue governs choice of law for state-law issues; apply transferor rules)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990) (transfer does not change law; avoid prejudice from shift in law)
- Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 1993) (limits applying transferor forum law in federal question cases)
- Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co., 76 F.3d 1538 (10th Cir. 1996) (federal transfer decisions borrow transferor limitations; jurisprudence followed)
- Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1943) (fraud-in-the-inducement theory; bid-rigging FCA liability)
- Hagood v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency, 929 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1991) (FCA liability for false statements to obtain government contracts)
- Loughren v. Unum Group, 613 F.3d 300 (1st Cir. 2010) (false statements may qualify as FCA false statements when defendant knew facts)