United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co.
710 F.3d 171
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Carter filed a qui tam action under the FCA alleging KBR overbilled the United States for Iraq services; the district court dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under the FCA’s first-to-file bar and for time-bar problems, including WSLA considerations; the court held WSLA did not toll claims brought by a private relator and that pre/post-2008 WSLA versions were unresolved for pre-2008 conduct; Carter appealed the dismissal; the panel held the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that WSLA tolling applies to private relators, remanding to consider the public-disclosure issue; the panel reversed and remanded for further factual development on public disclosure and related questions; the case involves related actions Duprey (Md. federal case) and a Texas action, which were pending, thus potentially triggering the first-to-file bar; the opinion remands to address whether the public-disclosure bar applies and to resolve factual issues relevant to WSLA tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does WSLA toll the FCA six-year limit for private relators when the government is not a party? | Carter contends WSLA tolls his FCA claims. | KBR argues WSLA tolling applies only to government actions or not at all for private relators. | WSLA tolls where Congress intended tolling for private relators. |
| Is Carter barred by the first-to-file rule due to Duprey/Texas actions? | Carter argues actions are not pending or related sufficiently. | Duprey/Texas are related pending actions that bar Carter. | First-to-file bar applies, but dismissal was improper; remand on public disclosure issue. |
| Does public disclosure bar require dismissal, and should it be addressed on remand? | N/A | Public disclosure bar could bar the action. | Remand to district court to assess public disclosure issue. |
| Should the district court have dismissed with prejudice given related actions and limitations? | Dismissal without prejudice may be appropriate. | Dismissal with prejudice was warranted by related actions. | Remand on public disclosure; the prior prejudice issue is reconsidered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.2011) (same-element test for FCA first-to-file)
- Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 371 (5th Cir.2009) (material-elements test for related actions)
- Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 431 F.3d 966 (6th Cir.2005) (first-to-file bar application guidance)
- Sanders v. North American Bus Industries, Inc., 546 F.3d 288 (4th Cir.2008) (limits tolling for private relators under FCA context)