United States Ex Rel. Green v. Service Contract Education & Training Trust Fund
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17213
D.D.C.2012Background
- Relator Gordon Green alleges FCA violations by SCETTF, LIUNA, and 29 contractor defendants involving false fringe-benefit claims under the SCA.
- The United States declined intervention; Green later dismissed claims against most contractors.
- Alleged scheme: SCETTF recaptured contractor contributions and funded on-the-job/classroom training, allegedly used to pay for contract-required work.
- Green asserts Addendum A and vouchers were false or misleading to obtain federal contract payments.
- Court dismisses reimbursement claim as public-disclosure barred; on-the-job-training claim survives jurisdiction but fails Rule 9(b) pleadings.
- Court dismisses action for lack of original-source status and failure to plead fraud with particularity; final order to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FCA public-disclosure bar defeat jurisdiction here? | Green contends he is an original source and not barred. | Defendants argue public disclosures via SCETTF website trigger bar. | Public disclosure bar precludes jurisdiction for reimbursement claim. |
| Is Green an original source to maintain claims despite public disclosure? | Green claims direct/independent knowledge and pre-disclosure to government. | Defendants contend Green lacks direct/independent knowledge and timely disclosure. | Green fails to prove direct/independent knowledge and pre-disclosure requirement. |
| Are the on-the-job training and reimbursement allegations pled with particularity? | Green alleges a broad scheme of fraud tied to reimbursements and training. | Complaint lacks time/place/content of specific false statements; Rule 9(b) not satisfied. | Reimbursement claim barred; on-the-job training claim not pleaded with particularity. |
| Does the case have subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed after dismissal? | Relator asserts jurisdiction under FCA with original-source exception. | Public disclosure and lack of original-source bar jurisdiction. | No jurisdiction over reimbursement claim; on-the-job claim survives but is dismissed for lack of particularity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (public disclosure includes whether allegations/transactions could alert government)
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2007) (original-source focus; pre-disclosure notification respected)
- Findley v. FPC-Boron Employees’ Club, 105 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (original source pre-disclosure and direct knowledge requirements)
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885 (S. Ct. 2011) (broad construction of news-media/public-disclosure channels)
- Hockett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 498 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (on direct/independent knowledge analysis under Findley framework)