United States ex rel. Kraxberger v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12224
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Kraxberger sues KCP & L under the FCA as a qui tam, alleging false BLCC projections, false-rate promises, and gratuities at the Bolling Building.
- GSA considered an all-electric system; PSC regulated rates and later limited the all-electric rate to certain customers.
- FOIA responses and PSC testimony publicized key allegations (BLCC rate, 11.5% vs 7% rate, and regulatory notices).
- District court dismissed BLCC/false-rate claims as publicly disclosed and granted summary judgment on gratuities; Kraxberger appeals.
- This court reviews de novo the public-disclosure bar and related issues; the judgment is affirmed.
- Assent to operation of FCA under current version acknowledged for purposes of this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public disclosure bar applicability | Kraxberger argues disclosures were not 'report' or 'news media' disclosures. | KCP & L contends disclosures render claims public and bar the FCA action. | Public disclosures (FOIA response and PSC testimony) trigger bar; no original-source material added. |
| Original-source requirement | Kraxberger claims independent knowledge adds to disclosures. | KCP & L says disclosures suffice and Kraxberger's knowledge is not material. | Kraxberger does not materially add to publicly disclosed allegations; bar applies. |
| Gratuities claim under FARs | GSA was influenced by gratuities and SLA provisions make KCP & L liable. | GSA exercised discretion; no regulatory failure shown; FCA liability not established. | District court proper in granting summary judgment on gratuities claim. |
| Procedural challenges to district court rulings | District court rushed or misapplied disclosures and scheduling in ruling. | District court properly handled public-disclosure defense and discovery issues. | No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Effect of public disclosures on BLCC/false-rate claims | Disclosures do not negate falsity; independent-source exception may apply. | Disclosures substantially duplicate allegations; no independent-source support. | Public-disclosure bar bars BLCC and false-rate claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885 (2011) (public-disclosure bar includes FOIA responses as reports and broad news-media sweep)
- Minnesota Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Allina Health Sys. Corp., 276 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2002) (majority view: qui tam suit based on public disclosure if allegations mirror disclosure)
- United States ex rel. Rabushka v. Crane Co., 40 F.3d 1509 (8th Cir. 1994) (public disclosure bar assessment of whether relator adds independent information)
- United States ex rel. Doe v. Staples, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2013) (courts treat readily accessible public websites as public disclosures in FCA context)
- Vigil v. Nelnet, Inc., 639 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2011) (supports government’s regulatory procedures relevance to FCA liability)