United States Ex Rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert International Construction, Inc.
786 F. Supp. 2d 110
D.D.C.2011Background
- Relator Miller and multiple defendants pursued FCA claims alleging a conspiracy to rig USAID contracts in Egypt, notably Contracts 20A, 29, and 07.
- Jury verdict found all defendants conspired to defraud the Government and awarded substantial damages; judgment trebled under FCA and fees awarded to Miller.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed portions of the judgment on statute of limitations and related issues, dismissing some claims and reversing as to others.
- Circuit reversal led to questions about prevailing party status and the continued validity of Miller's fee award against remaining defendants.
- This fee-dispute matter asks whether Miller remains prevailing party against BIE and HUK and whether fees should be reduced for partial success.
- Court orders vacatur of the fee award against BHIC, HII, and HC, but leaves intact (subject to adjustment) the award against BIE and HUK, and applies a 20% overall reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status after Miller IV | Miller remains prevailing party against BIE and HUK. | Miller cannot recover against all defendants after partial reversal. | Miller remains prevailing party for BIE and HUK; vacatur for BHIC, HII, HC. |
| Vacatur of fee awards when underlying judgment is vacated | Fees should stand except where relief against certain defendants no longer exists. | Fee awards tied to the vacated judgments should be vacated in whole or part. | Vacate fee awards as to BHIC, HII and HC; leave award against BIE and HUK subject to further adjustment. |
| Appropriate reduction under Hensley for partial success | Reduction should mirror overall success and total effort, not a mechanical fraction. | A two-thirds or proportional reduction is appropriate due to partial success on contracts 29/07. | Court applies an 80% compensation (20% reduction) reflecting substantial overall success and time expended on major claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court 1983) (two-stage test for fees when success is partial)
- Goos v. Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors, 997 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (relatedness of claims; material to fee computation)
- Goos II, 68 F.3d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (cautions against purely mechanical fee reductions)
- Raton Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC, 891 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (framework for determining proportionality of fees to success)
- American Lands Alliance v. Norton, 525 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.D.C. 2007) (considerations for fee reductions where related claims exist)