Term: 2014
Docket: 12-1497
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States Ex Rel. Carter
- Pro
12-1497 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT V. UNITED STATES, EX REL. CARTER DECISION BELOW: 710 F.3d 171 CERT. GRANTED 7/1/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act--a criminal code provision that tolls the statute of limitations for "any offense" involving fraud against the government "[w]hen the United States is at war," 18 U.S.C. § 3287, and which this Court has instructed must be "narrowly construed" in favor of repose--applies to claims of civil fraud brought by private relators, and is triggered without a formal declaration of war, in a manner that leads to indefinite tolling. 2. Whether, contrary to the conclusion of numerous courts, the False Claims Act's so called "first-to-file" bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)--which creates a race to the courthouse to reward relators who promptly disclose fraud against the government, while prohibiting repetitive, parasitic claims--functions as a "one-case-at-a-time" rule allowing an infinite series of duplicative claims so long as no prior claim is pending at the time of filing. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-1011
The case of Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter (2014) revolved around the interpretation of two legal provisions: the False Claims Act's "first-to-file" bar and its statute of limitations for wartime frauds. The first-to-file rule prohibits a person from bringing a related action based on facts underlying an already pending lawsuit, while the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act suspends statutes of limitations for any offense involving fraud against the government during times when America is at war or Congress has enacted specific authorizations for use military force. Benjamin Carter, a former employee, filed multiple lawsuits alleging that his employer had falsely billed the U.S Government for water purification services in Iraq. His initial suits were dismissed due to similar cases being previously filed by other whistleblowers. In this Supreme Court hearing, it was decided that only one suit could be active at any given time under first-to-file provision but once it was resolved or dismissed then another whistleblower could file again with same allegations if they remained unresolved - effectively allowing successive claims on same issue until fully addressed by courts. Regarding wartime suspension act application to civil cases like these; court ruled it applied only to criminal charges not civil ones thereby limiting timeframe within which such fraudulent billing claims can be made.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter argued that the majority's interpretation of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) was too broad and could potentially lead to abuse by extending statutes of limitations indefinitely for civil fraud cases during times of war. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's interpretation on first-to-file bar under False Claims Act (FCA), arguing that it should not be read as an absolute rule barring later suits but rather a more flexible one allowing subsequent related claims once earlier ones are resolved or dismissed.
