United States Ex Rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert International Construction, Inc.
865 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- Miller alleged a conspiracy to defraud USAID by rigging bids on Egypt contracts, with damages over $30 million and a jury verdict against several Harbert entities.
- After a seven-week trial, the court entered judgment around $90 million under the False Claims Act; the D.C. Circuit affirmed most aspects but found prejudice from certain evidence and vacated judgment as to BHIC, HII, and HC.
- The mandate remanded for a new trial on certain issues, and the court later considered limiting retrial to whether BHIC, HII, and HC joined the conspiracy.
- Post-remand, parties disputed the scope of retrial: the government urged a limited or partial retrial; defendants urged a full retrial on all issues.
- The court concluded the Miller II mandate and opinion do not clearly dictate a limited scope, and a full retrial on all relevant issues is warranted to address pervasive errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the mandate require a limited retrial or a full retrial? | Miller II mandate supports limited retrial only. | Mandate requires full retrial on all issues. | Mandate and opinion do not unequivocally dictate scope; full retrial warranted. |
| Can the conspiracy issue be retried separately from damages? | Damages separable; conspiracy can be retried alone. | Conspiracy, damages, and scope are interwoven; cannot easily separate. | Separation not feasible; full retrial on all issues necessary. |
| Were the identified circuit errors capable of being isolated to specific issues without affecting others? | Errors about BHIC existence and wealth evidence were isolated to specific matters. | Errors permeated the trial affecting multiple findings. | Errors permeated proceedings; require comprehensive retrial. |
| Did prejudice from wealth and formation evidence require vacating or broad retrial impact on liability and damages? | Prejudice was limited to certain issues; damages were not tied to conspiracy scope. | Prejudice affected core determinations, including conspiracy and damages. | Prejudice affected core issues; full retrial needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Ref. Co., 283 U.S. 494 (1931) (scope of retrial depends on separability and prejudice)
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. Connolly, 214 F.2d 254 (D.C. Cir. 1954) (mandate scope and limited retrial principles)
- Role Models Am., Inc. v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (mandate guidance and limited remand authority)
- Sherwin v. Welch, 319 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (judgment on remand may be limited; not necessarily a full new trial)
- Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (issue separability governs partial retrial viability)
- United States v. Booze, 108 F.3d 378 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (guidance on conspiracy scope and evidence impact)
- Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Ref. Co., 283 U.S. 494 (1931) (reiterated on list; not duplicative in this entry)
- Miller II, 608 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (holding that wealth and existence evidence prejudiced, and that full retrial may be required)