History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States Ex Rel. Scott v. Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc.
270 F. Supp. 3d 146
| D.D.C. | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Relators Patricia Scott and John L. Tudbury worked for PAE in Lebanon on INL-funded civilian police training contracts and allege PAE billed the U.S. government for hours not actually worked from ~Dec. 2007–Dec. 2011.
  • Alleged falsification methods included: labeling non-work (sightseeing, mall visits, gym, etc.) as “team building,” marking absent employees as “available,” and billing for training sessions that did not occur.
  • Relators identify two PAE managers (Thomas Barnes and Dan Moritz) as encouraging “creative billing,” and provide time ranges and examples of affected pay periods and employee names.
  • Additional allegations: early submission of timesheets requiring fabrication, hiring underqualified personnel, misuse of government-funded drivers, and steering employees to buy expensive airfare for a commission.
  • Both relators claim they were retaliated against for investigating/reporting the billing practices; Scott alleges termination orchestrated by PAE, Tudbury’s account of departure is internally inconsistent.
  • Procedural posture: PAE moved to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part (Mem. Op. and Order, Sept. 13, 2017).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Relators pleaded viable FCA presentment claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)) Relators: PAE submitted false invoices and caused false claims by billing for hours not worked using specific schemes and managers’ directions PAE: Complaint lacks the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and fails to plausibly plead false claims Held: Denied as to presentment claims — pleaded with sufficient particularity (time span, location, schemes, responsible managers) to survive dismissal
Whether Relators pleaded viable false-record/statement claims (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B)) Relators: Timesheets and GSA 139 forms were false/material to claims PAE: Same Rule 9(b) challenge; alleged records are not particular enough Held: Denied as to § 3729(a)(1)(B) — allegations adequately plead false records/statements material to claims
Whether Relators stated a reverse-FCA claim (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G)) Relators: PAE invoiced medical expenses but failed to reimburse relators, concealing obligation to return money to the government PAE: Reverse-claim theory duplicates presentment theory and doesn’t allege an independent obligation to repay Held: Granted — reverse-FCA claim dismissed without prejudice because it would collapse into the ordinary false-claim theory
Whether relators stated retaliation claims under § 3730(h) Scott & Tudbury: Engaged in protected investigations and were discriminated/terminated because of that activity PAE: Scott was performing job duties and position was eliminated by the State; Tudbury left voluntarily so no actionable retaliation Held: Split — Scott's § 3730(h) claim survives (pleaded protected activity and causal nexus); Tudbury's § 3730(h) claim dismissed without prejudice due to contradictions and insufficient facts

Key Cases Cited

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual plausibility requirement)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: more than labels and conclusions)
  • United States ex rel. Heath v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112 (Rule 9(b) contextual flexibility; ensure defendant can mount a defense)
  • United States ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd., 389 F.3d 1251 (Rule 9(b) requires identification of who, what, when, where, how)
  • United States v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 626 F.3d 1257 (false-claim paradigms and presentment theory)
  • United States ex rel. Morsell v. Symantec Corp., 130 F. Supp. 3d 106 (FCA pleading under Rule 9(b))
  • United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., 51 F. Supp. 3d 9 (FCA claim theories; statute interpretation)
  • Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l, 409 F.3d 414 (elements of FCA retaliation claim)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States Ex Rel. Scott v. Pacific Architects & Engineers, Inc.
Court Name: District Court, District of Columbia
Date Published: Sep 13, 2017
Citation: 270 F. Supp. 3d 146
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2013-1844
Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.