United States Ex Rel. Tran v. Computer Sciences Corp.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90757
D.D.C.2014Background
- Relator sues CSC, Modis, and Sagent under the FCA for a pass-through subcontracting scheme on a USCIS IT contract.
- CSC acted as prime contractor; Modis and Infotran executed subcontracts; Infotran allegedly served as a small-business conduit to Modis.
- A September 2008 Task Order required a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and reporting (ISRs/SSRs); CSC allegedly reported compliance despite pass-through arrangements.
- Relator alleges a scheme whereby Infotran/Sagent would be paid through CSC while work was performed by large businesses, enabling CSC to meet small-business goals in name only.
- Courts dismissed some counts against Sagent and some counts against Modis/CSC remain viable; the opinion resolves Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) issues and outlines remaining claims for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Presentment and Material False Statements counts against CSC survive. | Tran. | CSC argues pass-through is lawful; no false claims. | Counts survive as to CSC. |
| Whether the Fraudulent Inducement claim against CSC is valid. | CSC induced the government by misrepresenting plan compliance. | No fraudulent inducement shown beyond ordinary pass-through. | Fraudulent inducement against CSC adequately pled. |
| Whether Modis can be held liable for Presentment/Material False Statements. | Modis knowingly caused submission of false claims. | Modis's role insufficiently connected to knowledge or intent. | Counts against Modis survive. |
| Whether the Retaliation claim against CSC and Modis is viable. | Relator engaged in protected activity by refusing to participate. | Refusal to participate is not protected activity; causation not shown. | Retaliation claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for facial sufficiency of a claim)
- United States v. SAIC, 626 F.3d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (FCA pleading with materiality and presentment standards)
- U.S. ex rel. Williams v. Martin–Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd., 389 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Rule 9(b) standards for fraud claims in FCA actions)
- United States v. Toyobo Co. Ltd., 811 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2011) (causation and presentment theories under FCA)
- U.S. ex rel. Hood v. Satory Global, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2013) (materiality and falsity standards under FCA)