United States v. Honeywell International, Inc.
841 F. Supp. 2d 112
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- The government sues Honeywell for FCA violations and unjust enrichment related to Zylon body armor with Z Shield.
- Honeywell answered and asserted the first affirmative defense: waiver and estoppel.
- The government moves to strike that defense as legally invalid in a government-money-recovery action.
- Court analyzes whether equitable estoppel or waiver can bar government claims under FCA, referencing Richmond.
- Courts in the D.C. Circuit recognize limits on equitable defenses against the government; the court still requires definite representation, reliance, and misconduct for estoppel.
- The court grants the motion to strike the waiver/estoppel defense as insufficient at the pleadings stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver/estoppel can bar an FCA claim by the United States | Richmond bars equitable defenses against the government | Estoppel/waiver can apply if facts show government conduct | Waiver and estoppel defenses are insufficient and stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Personnel Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) (estoppel against the government limited; remedies depend on context)
- ATC Petroleum, Inc. v. Sanders, 860 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (equitable estoppel applies to government actors but with high standards)
- Morris Communications Inc. v. FCC, 566 F.3d 184 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (explicit cautious approach to estoppel against government)
- Graham v. SEC, 222 F.3d 994 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (equitable estoppel requirements against government actors)
- Heckler v. Community Health Services, Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (1984) (government not generally estopped on terms available to private parties)
- United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (defining elements for waiver/estoppel against government)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (authority and scope of government waivers and defenses)