816 F.3d 878
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Relator Brian Burke filed a qui tam False Claims Act suit alleging Record Press overcharged the Government Printing Office (GPO) for printing appellate briefs.
- Burke brought the suit after the government billed him costs for briefing printed by Record Press; he argued the contract rate was lower than what Record Press charged.
- The GPO and Record Press both agreed the charged rate complied with the contract; the government declined to intervene.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Record Press, finding Burke failed to prove Record Press knowingly submitted false claims.
- Record Press moved for attorneys’ fees under the FCA fee-shifting provision and 28 U.S.C. § 1927; the district court denied fees without the findings required by Rule 52(a).
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed judgment for Record Press but vacated and remanded the denial of attorneys’ fees for the district court to make the required factual and legal findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Record Press knowingly presented false claims in violation of the FCA | Burke: contract line item was misapplied; Record Press knowingly overcharged GPO | Record Press & GPO: charged rate reflected contract; no knowledge of falsity | Court: No clear error — Burke failed to prove the requisite "knowing" state of mind; judgment for Record Press affirmed |
| Whether the district court erred by considering extrinsic evidence about parties’ contract understanding | Burke: court improperly considered extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation | Record Press: government’s agreement on contract meaning is relevant to defendant’s state of mind | Court: Extrinsic evidence (including GPO’s understanding) was appropriate to assess knowledge; not a pure contract dispute |
| Whether government knowledge defense applies or bars consideration of government understanding | Burke: reliance on GPO’s view misapplied "government knowledge" defense | Record Press: GPO’s understanding is evidence negating scienter, not a defense invocation | Court: No invocation of the defense; government officials’ knowledge can show lack of deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard |
| Whether denial of attorneys’ fees and §1927 sanctions was adequately explained | Burke: (implicit) fee motions collateral; district court denied fees on that basis | Record Press: FCA permits fee-shifting; §1927 applies where counsel multiplied proceedings vexatiously | Court: District court failed to make required Rule 52(a) findings; vacated denial and remanded for explanation and factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (overview of qui tam actions under the FCA)
- United States ex rel. K & R Ltd. P’ship v. Mass. Hous. Fin. Agency, 530 F.3d 980 (D.C. Cir.) (defining FCA "knowing" standard)
- Armstrong v. Geithner, 608 F.3d 854 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (standard of review for mixed legal/factual findings)
- United States ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (government understanding relevant to scienter)
- United States ex rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of Calif., Inc., 393 F.3d 1321 (D.C. Cir.) (government knowledge and FCA implications)
- United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir.) (government knowledge defense discussed)
- United States ex rel. Hagood v. Sonoma Cty. Water Agency, 929 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.) (officials’ knowledge probative on scienter)
- FDIC v. Bender, 182 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review for fee denials and need for findings)
- Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir.) (appellate court should not substitute its view for district court on fee reasonableness)
- Moore v. CapitalCare, Inc., 461 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (remand for district court findings on fee motions)