Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ("KB&RS"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Carter resists this conclusion, based on unreasonable readings of certain statements from Carter III. Because we need not do so, we decline to comment on the other reasons the district court identified as justifying its rejection of Carter's effort to circumvent dismissal through amendment. See United States ex rel. We reaffirm this holding today. at 7, 11). 25-2). This policy argument offers no basis for disregarding the first-to-file rule's unambiguous statutory text. Navy. Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. On the present record, the court is also unable to determine whether, and to what extent, KBR and Service Employees International were integrated into the military chain of command. Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Carter takes issue with the policy implications of holding (i) that the first-to-file rule is violated when an FCA action is brought while a related action is pending (regardless of the eventual outcome of the latter action), and (ii) that a first-to-file violation must be sanctioned with dismissal. The district court denied Relator leave to amend on grounds of futility, holding as a matter of law that a relator cannot cure a first-to-file defect by amending or supplementing his complaint after dismissal of all earlier-filed, related actions. The answer to this question turned on how a court should read the first-to-file rule's prohibition on the bringing of an FCA action while a related action is pending. 31 U.S.C. 1993) ("The Defense Base Act generally entitles employees at overseas military bases to benefits of the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act[.]"). 2d at 714 ("Any renovation activities required approval from the [the military] before they could be performed."). Id. KBR removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, the plaintiffs moved to remand, and KBR moved to dismiss. Claimant began working for employer in Iraq as a heavy truck driver in January 2005 and later became a convoy commander. Without more information in the record, the court cannot reliably or accurately determine whether the plaintiffs were engaged in combatant activities. WebServices, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. The main Aiello , 751 F. Supp. 2680(j) (emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit construes the statute in favor of remand and construes ambiguities against the removing party. Harris , 724 F.3d at 482 ("The considerable discretion [the contractor] had in deciding how to complete the maintenance at issue here thus prevents the plaintiffs suit from being preempted because the military did not retain command authority over [the contractor's] actions. "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement. " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. See Burn Pit Litig. We affirm. At KBR, every action we take as a company is aligned with our mission, vision and values, which provides the framework for who we are and how we operate. La. Do not close your browser or leave the NLRB Id. at *812 & n.11. Notably, KBR's petition never questioned this Court's holding that the first-to-file analysis depends on the set of facts in existence at the time an FCA action is filed. civ. Carter asserts that our prior holding that a first-to-file analysis turns on the set of facts existing at the time an FCA action was commenced has been undermined by the Supreme Court's intervening decision in this case. The only court to apply this test in a Defense Base Act case did so on a summary judgment motion. We disagree. Connect. Create an account and take our (Id. WebService Employee International,Inc. O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter I), No. Feb. 8, 1999). On this record, the court cannot conclude as a matter of law that KBR and Service Employees International were, or were not, under military command authority. 25-3); and the plaintiffs have alleged that KBR had control over them, (Docket Entry No. Carson v. Manor Care, Inc., 851 F.3d 293, 303 (4th Cir. "A party may remove an action from state court to federal court if the action is one over which the federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction." 2301, 168 L.Ed.2d 42 (2007) ; see also Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 291 ("[The contractor's] status as a person and its federal contract with the Navy satisfy the first and second conditions. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter II), 710 F.3d 171, 17476 (4th Cir. The D.C. Ins. The lead-up to Carter's second-quoted statement confirms that the Court was only using the description live to mean not time-barred. See id. & Prod. The Fifth Circuit has held that, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, an employee can have multiple "employers," each of which is entitled to immunity. Courts have offered three main views. 1442(a)(1), to remove an action, even if the plaintiff's complaint raises no federal question, so long as the officer asserts a "colorable federal defense," Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 291. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and then affirmed in part and reversed in part this Court's decision. KBR, Inc. (NYSE:NYSE:KBR) Q1 2023 Earnings Conference Call May 1, 2023 8:30 AM ETCompany ParticipantsJamie DuBray - Investor RelationsStuart Bradie - President and The plaintiffs allege that they were employed by Service Employees International and worked at the Al Asad base, but without further information. More is needed. We likewise review a denial of a motion for reconsideration under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. The Supreme Court acknowledged, however, that Carter had raised additional arguments that, if successful, could render at least one claim of his timely on remand. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, we conclude that Carter III left the above-described holding intact. "); Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 613. "); Ruppel , 701 F.3d at 1181 (" Acting under covers situations, like this one, where the federal government uses a private corporation to achieve an end it would have otherwise used its own agents to complete."). Our precedent on this issue is clear: The first-to-file rule is designed to restrict the bringing of certain types of suits, so when a relator brings an FCA action to court in violation of the first-to-file rule, the court must dismiss the action. Carson, 851 F.3d at 302. SEII and KBR were affiliated companies that were bothsubsidiariesofHalliburton,Inc. 2d 344, 347 (D.D.C. Region 16, Fort Worth, Texas. 2015) (per curiam). Circuit approaches and instead following, as the more persuasive, the Third and Fourth Circuit reasoning. Research & Policy Director Service Employees International Union Local (Former Employee) - San Jose, CA - March 12, 2020. 2015). In his complaint, Carter alleged that KBR had violated the FCA by fraudulently billing the government in connection with its water purification services.2. Workers Comp. 28 U.S.C. Courts have had little trouble concluding that the federal government has a unique federal interest in "the management of wars." In 2013, while the Supreme Court was still considering Carter's petition for certiorari, Carter refiled his complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia. (Id. 3730(b)(5), and therefore violated the first-to-file rule. 1441(a) ). Our History Three employees of a contractor working on an American military base in Iraq have sued the contractor's parent company, alleging that it is responsible for the injuries they received when Iranian ballistic missiles struck the base in January 2020.

Broadcom Vmware Layoffs, Immigrant Visa Fee Payment Received, How To Hide A Bad Haircut Guys At School, Articles S