%PDF-1.4
%
1 0 obj
<>stream
Thursday March 14, 2013 12:54:32
ECMP5; modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT
VERSACOMP R05.2
2015-06-02T11:20:47-04:00
2015-06-02T11:20:47-04:00
application/pdf
uuid:5eea7225-b3b7-4af5-be94-bac7d6ad070f
uuid:58bcb250-d6f2-4b2d-b867-f48144761b4e
endstream
endobj
2 0 obj
[/PDF/Text]
endobj
3 0 obj
<>/OCGs[4 0 R]>>/Type/Catalog/AcroForm 5 0 R/Metadata 1 0 R/Pages 6 0 R>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/Font<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>
endobj
12 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
25 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.5 Td
1.65 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( William Clifton Holmes, DUNLAP, GRUBB &) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.75 Tw
(WEAVER, PC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John Mar-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.07 Tw
(tin Faust, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. FAUST, PLLC,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.32 Tw
(Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Thomas M.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.88 Tw
(Dunlap, David Ludwig, DUNLAP, GRUBB & WEAVER,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.08 Tw
(PC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig D. Margolis,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.25 Tw
(Tirzah S. Lollar, Kathryn B. Codd, VINSON & ELKINS) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -44.6 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26.4 Td
(FLOYD, Circuit Judge:) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
1.1 Tw
(Appellant Benjamin Carter appeals the district court's dis-) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.11 Tw
(missal of his complaint with prejudice. The matter was initi-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.7 Tw
(ated upon Carter's filing of a qui tam lawsuit under the False) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.32 Tw
(Claims Act \(FCA\), 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.32 Tw
(3729. The subject matter) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.52 Tw
(underlying this case involves Appellees'Halliburton Com-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(pany; KBR, Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
14 Tw
(Service Employees International, Inc. \(collectively) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.25 Tw
(KBR\)alleged fraudulent billing of the United States for ser-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.77 Tw
(vices provided to the military forces serving in Iraq. The dis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.91 Tw
(trict court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(over Carter's claims because of the False Claims Act's first-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.03 Tw
(to-file bar, 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.03 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\). The district court also held) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.58 Tw
(that Carter's complaint had been filed beyond the six-year) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.96 Tw
(statute of limitations in the FCA and was not tolled by the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.47 Tw
(Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act \(WSLA\), 18 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.36 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.36 Tw
(3287, which the court ruled does not apply to non-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(intervened qui tam cases. Accordingly, the district court dis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.1 Tw
(missed Carter's complaint with prejudice. Because we con-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.25 Tw
(clude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.1 Tw
(find that the WSLA applies to this action, we reverse. Further,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.67 Tw
(because it may be appropriate for the district court to make) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -153.65 m 300 -153.65 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.83 Tw
0 Tc
(factual findings to consider the public disclosure claim urged) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.23 Tw
(by KBR, we remand so the district court can consider this) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(issue. ) Tj
146.502 -26 Td
(I.) Tj
-134.502 -26 Td
1.3 Tw
(In his complaint, Carter brings a qui tam action under the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.4 Tw
(False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.4 Tw
(3729 through 3733. The FCA) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.13 Tw
(allows the United States to bring suit to recover funds and) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.53 Tw
(also allows, through the Act's qui tam provisions, for a pri-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(vate plaintiff \(relator\) to sue in place of the government and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(keep a share of the proceeds. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.33 Tw
(3730\(a\)-\(d\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(Carter alleges that KBR falsely billed the United States for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(services performed in Iraq. Specifically, Carter alleges that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(KBR "knowingly presented to an officer or employee of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(United States Government . . . false or fraudulent claims for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(payment or approval in violation of 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.01 Tw
(3729\(a\)\(1\).") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(Carter goes on to allege that KBR "knowingly made, used, or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(caused to be made or used, false records or statements to get) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(false or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the Govern-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment" in violation of 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(3729\(a\)\(2\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.66 Tw
(KBR provided logistical services to the United States mili-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(tary in Iraq under a government contract. Carter worked for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(KBR as a reverse osmosis water purification unit \(ROWPU\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(operator at two camps in Iraq from mid-January 2005 until) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(April 2005. Carter was hired to test and purify water for the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(troops in Iraq. Carter claims that KBR was in fact not purify-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(ing water during the time period but was repeatedly misrepre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(senting to the United States that it was. Carter submits that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(water purification did not actually begin until May 2005. Fur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(ther, Carter maintains that he and his fellow employees were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(instructed to submit time sheets for twelve-hour days for work) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(that they performed on ROWPU functions. During this time,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(Carter states that he was actually not working any hours on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(ROWPU functions. Carter also contends as part of an overall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(scheme by KBR to overbill the government for labor charges,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(that all trade employees were required to submit time sheets) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-223.9265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
27 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.91 Tw
0 Tc
(totaling exactly twelve hours per day and eighty-four hours) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.09 Tw
(per week and that it was "routine practice" of the employees) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.67 Tw
(to do so regardless of actual hours worked. As a result,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(according to Carter, the United States paid KBR for work not) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(actually performed. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.41 Tw
(Carter filed his original complaint under seal on February) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.13 Tw
(1, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Central) Tj
0 -13 Td
.14 Tw
(District of California. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel. Carter v. Hallibur-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(ton Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 06-cv-0616 \(C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 1, 2006\). After) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(over two years of investigation into the matter, the action was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(unsealed in May 2008. Shortly thereafter, the case was trans-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(ferred to the Eastern District of Virginia in October 2008, at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(which point Carter amended his complaint. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 08-cv-1162 \(E.D. Va. filed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.12 Tw
(Feb. 1, 2006\). The district court dismissed Carter's first) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(amended complaint without prejudice in January 2009 for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(failure to plead fraud with particularity. Carter then amended) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(his complaint for a second time and re-filed his complaint in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(January 2009 \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2009) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\). KBR then moved to dismiss Car-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.85 Tw
(ter's second amended complaint under Rules 9\(b\) and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(12\(b\)\(6\) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.37 Tw
(district court granted in part. The district court, however,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.02 Tw
(refused to dismiss counts 1 and 4. Count 1 alleged a scheme) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(by KBR to submit fraudulent claims for payment to the gov-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(ernment, and count 4 alleged fraudulent statements knowingly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.22 Tw
(made to the government to receive claims for payment. At) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(this point, KBR answered the remaining allegations and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.05 Tw
(case proceeded through discovery, which closed in March) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(2010. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1 Tw
(In March 2010, one month before the scheduled trial date,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(the parties were contacted by the United States Department of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(Justice, who informed them of the existence of a False Claims) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(Act case containing similar allegations filed under seal in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(December 2005, in the United States District Court for the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(Central District of California, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel. Thorpe v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(Halliburton Co) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(., No. 05-cv-08924 \(C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 23,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.03 Tw
0 Tc
(2005\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thorpe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( also alleges that KBR's standard operating pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.23 Tw
(cedure was billing twelve hours per day, without regard to the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.18 Tw
(actual hours worked to perpetuate a scheme to overbill the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.1 Tw
(government. In April 2010, KBR filed a motion to dismiss) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
4.31 Tw
(Carter 2009) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, arguing that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thorpe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( constituted a "related") Tj
0 -13 Td
2.48 Tw
(action under FCA ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.48 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\). In response, Carter argued) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thorpe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was materially different from his case because he) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(focused on KBR's alleged fraudulent misrepresentation to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(government that KBR was actually performing water services) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(for which it was submitting bills. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.28 Tw
(The district court rejected Carter's characterization, reason-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(ing that he must show that KBR employees were reporting) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(hours that they did not work and the fact that KBR was not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(performing water services is merely evidence that the time) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(sheets were false. The district court dismissed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2009) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(without prejudice on May 10, 2010. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 08-cv-1162.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Carter appealed the dismissal on July 13, 2010. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.96 Tw
(Thereafter, the United States District Court for the Central) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(District of California dismissed the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thorpe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( action on July 30,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(2010. In response, Carter re-filed his complaint \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2010) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(Virginia while his appeal was still pending. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 10-cv-864 \(E.D. Va. filed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(Aug. 4, 2010\). When Carter re-filed his complaint, he also) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(sought to dismiss his appeal in the 2009 action. This Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(granted Carter's motion to dismiss his appeal on February 14,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(2011. Meanwhile, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2010) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( proceeded in the district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(and, on May 24, 2011, the district court dismissed Carter's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(complaint without prejudice, on the grounds that Carter had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.76 Tw
(filed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2010) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( while ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2009) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was still pending on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(appeal, thereby creating his own jurisdictional bar under the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(FCA's first-to-file provision. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 10-cv-864. Carter) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(chose not to appeal this ruling. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.38 Tw
(However, Carter re-filed his complaint \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2011) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\) on) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(June 2, 2011. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-223.9265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3 Tw
0 Tc
(No. 11-cv-602 \(E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2011\). The district) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.3 Tw
(court unsealed the complaint on August 24, 2011. The com-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.57 Tw
(plaint in this case is identical to the earlier 2010 complaint as) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.63 Tw
(well the second amended complaint filed in 2009. After the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.82 Tw
(complaint was unsealed, KBR moved to dismiss the action,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.74 Tw
(arguing that the complaint was barred by two related actions,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.41 Tw
(that the case was time barred, and that the case was barred by) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(the public disclosure provision of the FCA. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.06 Tw
(At the time ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2011) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was filed, two allegedly related) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(cases were pending: ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel. Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 8:07-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(cv-1487\(D. Md. filed June 5, 2007\) and another actionthat) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(is under sealfiled in Texas in 2007. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the Texas) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(action allege that KBR "knowingly presented, or caused to be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Gov-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(ernment, false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(in violation of 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(3729\(a\)\(1\)." Since at least March) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(2003, KBR provided shipping and transportation support in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(Iraq for the United States military. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( relator was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(employed by KBR as a truck driver in Iraq from March 27,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(2005, to January 15, 2006. The Texas relators were also truck) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(drivers in Iraq, and at least one relator was present in Iraq dur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(ing the period of September 2003 to March 15, 2004. Both) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(complaints allege substantially similar claims, namely that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(KBR had a policy that its drivers enter time sheets reflecting) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(a twelve hour workday and an eighty-four hour work week,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(without regard to actual hours worked. The relators alleged) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(that this practice was widespread throughout KBR's opera-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(tions in Iraq and elsewhere. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was subsequently volun-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(tarily dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas action was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(voluntarily dismissed in March 2012. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.57 Tw
(The district court granted KBR's motion and dismissed the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(complaint with prejudice on November 29, 2011, ruling that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.64 Tw
(the case was related to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the Texas action. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(court also found that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was "pending" for purposes of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(the first-to-file bar, because it had not been dismissed at the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(time ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2011) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was filed. The court considered whether the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.65 Tw
0 Tc
(Texas action was also "pending" as to bar ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2011) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, but) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(ultimately concluded that it need not decide the issue because) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(at least one case) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(was pending. The district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(also held that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter 2011) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( had been filed beyond the FCA's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.25 Tw
(six-year statute of limitations and would be time barred) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(should it be re-filed. Because of this reason, the court dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(missed the case with prejudice. The district court further held) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(that Carter's action was not tolled by the WSLA. The district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(court held that the WSLA does not apply to claims under the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(FCA brought by private relators. Finding ample grounds to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(dismiss the action, the district court did not consider whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(the complaint was barred by the public disclosure provision) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(of the FCA. Carter timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(suant to 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1291. ) Tj
144.504 -26 Td
(II.) Tj
-132.504 -26 Td
1.47 Tw
(We review de novo the district court's legal rulings, such) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.81 Tw
(as its granting of KBR's motion to dismiss. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Simmons v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 634 F.3d 754, 762 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(2011\). To the extent that the decisions below involved legal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(conclusions based upon factual determinations, we review the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(light most favorable to Carter. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
142.506 -26 Td
(III.) Tj
-130.506 -26 Td
1.91 Tw
(We first address Carter's contention that the WSLA tolls) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(his action and therefore, that his claims are not time barred) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(under the FCA. ) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26.1 Td
.93 Tw
(First, as a general matter, qui tam actions must be brought) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(within six years after the date on which the alleged violation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(occurred. 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.41 Tw
(3731\(b\). The WSLA was enacted in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(1942 to extend the time for prosecution to bring charges relat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(ing to criminal fraud offenses against the United States during) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-223.9265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
<>
endobj
38 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.22 Tw
0 Tc
(times of war. Wartime Enforcement Fraud Act of 2008, S.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.21 Tw
(Rep. No. 110-431, at 2. When enacted, the law applied to "of-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.75 Tw
(fenses involving the defrauding or attempts to defraud the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.72 Tw
(United States . . . and now indictable under any existing stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.04 Tw
(utes." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Dugan & McNamara, Inc. v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 127 F.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(Supp. 801, 802 \(Ct. Cl. 1955\). When amended in 1944, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.35 Tw
(phrase "now indictable" was deleted. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 802. The WSLA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(was later codified, and is now to be used whenever the coun-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(try is at war. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1 Tw
(The Fifth Circuit has determined that the WSLA has three) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(components: "\(1\) a triggering clause \(`When the United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(is at war the running of [the applicable statute of limitations]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(shall be suspended . . . '\), \(2\) a suspension period \(`three) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(years'\), and \(3\) a termination clause \(`suspended until . . .) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the Presi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.8 Tw
(dent or by a concurrent resolution of Congress.'\)." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(States v. Pfluger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 685 F.3d 481, 483 \(5th Cir. 2012\) \(alter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(ations in original\) \(quoting 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.78 Tw
(3287\)\). The Supreme) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(Court has held that the WSLA applies only to offenses com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(mitted after the triggering clause and before the termination) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.87 Tw
(of hostilities. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Smith) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 U.S. 225, 262) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(\(1952\). The running of the limitations period then begins) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(when hostilities are terminated. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 262. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
(Prior to October 4, 2008, the WSLA provided:) Tj
10 -26 Td
.73 Tw
(When the United States is at war the running of any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(statute of limitations applicable to any offense \(1\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.88 Tw
(involving fraud or attempted fraud against the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(United States . . . shall be suspended until three years) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(the President or by a concurrent resolution of Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(gress. ) Tj
-22 -26 Td
.47 Tw
(18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(3287 \(2006\) \(current version at 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(3287) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(\(2011\)\). In 2008, the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(\(WEFA\) amended the WSLA to expand its times of operation) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.07 Tw
0 Tc
(to "[w]hen the United States is at war or Congress has enacted) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.74 Tw
(specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces, as) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(described in section 5\(b\) of the War Powers Resolution \(50) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.54 Tw
(U.S.C. 1544\(b\)\)." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.76 Tw
(Pub. L. No. 110-417 ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.76 Tw
(855, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(codified at) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.76 Tw
(3287.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.2 Tw
(Additionally, the suspension period was extended until "5) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(Presidential proclamation, with notice to Congress, or by a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(concurrent resolution of Congress." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.58 Tw
(Courts are in disagreement as to which version of the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(WSLA applies to offenses that occurred before the amend-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.81 Tw
(ments of 2008. Additionally, courts are in conflict as to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(whether the pre-amendment WSLA requires a formal declara-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(tion of war or whether the authorized use of military force) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(shall suffice. ) Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
.07 Tw
(Carter contends that the conflict in Iraq in 2005 is sufficient) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(to trigger WSLA's "at war" status under either version of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.47 Tw
(WSLA. KBR however, urges us not to apply the post-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.9 Tw
(amendment WSLA because it believes that the post-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(amendment WSLA implicates its constitutional due process) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(rights in that the Act may allow a statute of limitations to run) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(indefinitely. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.55 Tw
(The question presented is the meaning of "at war" as it) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(appears in the WSLA. As with all questions of statutory con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.24 Tw
(struction, we begin by examining the statute's language.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
("[W]hen a statute speaks with clarity to an issue[,] judicial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(inquiry into the statute's meaning, in all but the most extraor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.76 Tw
(dinary circumstance, is finished." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ramey v. Dir., Office of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(Workers' Comp. Program) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 326 F.3d 474, 476 \(4th Cir. 2003\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(\(second alteration in original\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Estate of Cowert v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(Nicklos Drilling Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 505 U.S. 469, 475 \(1992\)\) \(internal quo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(tation marks omitted\). In interpreting a statute we "must pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.15 Tw
(sume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-223.9265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
40 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.24 Tw
0 Tc
(means in a statute what it says there." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Barnhart v. Sigmon) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(Coal Co., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 534 U.S. 438, 461-62 \(2002\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.43 Tw
(Although the meaning of "at war" may appear unambigu-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(ous at first glance, its meaning in the context of the WSLA) Tj
0 -13 Td
.37 Tw
(is not so clear. As the Supreme Court has noted, "Congress in) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(drafting laws may decide that the Nation may be `at war' for) Tj
0 -13 Td
.25 Tw
(one purpose, and `at peace' for another." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lee v. Madigan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 358) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(U.S. 228, 231 \(1959\). Therefore, we must determine what) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Congress meant by "at war" in the context of the WSLA. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.3 Tw
(As an initial matter, we find it unnecessary to decide which) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(version of the WSLA applies because we find that the Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(does not require a formal declaration of war. Therefore, under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.09 Tw
(either version of the Act, the United States was at war when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.97 Tw
(the acts at issue occurred. We find that the Act does not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(require a formal declaration of war for several reasons. First,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(had Congress intended the phrase "at war" to encompass only) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.78 Tw
(declared wars, it could have written the limitation of "de-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(clared war" into the Act as it has in numerous statutes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.22 Tw
(2416\(d\) \(tolling provision for civil claims by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(the United States seeking money damages applies only when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
("the United States is in a state of war declared pursuant to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States."\);) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(50 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.2 Tw
(1829 \("Notwithstanding any other provision of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(law, the President, through the Attorney General, may autho-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(rize physical searches without a court order . . . to acquire for-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(eign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(calendar days following a declaration of war by the Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(gress."\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.44 Tw
(Next, we believe that requiring a declared war would be an) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(unduly formalistic approach that ignores the realities of today,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(where the United States engages in massive military cam-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(paigns resulting in enormous expense and widespread blood-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(shed without declaring a formal war. In fact, the United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.78 Tw
(has not declared war since World War II. However, there) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(have been extensive military engagements in Vietnam, Korea,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.75 Tw
0 Tc
(Kosovo, Afghanistan, and twice in Iraq. Indeed, the Supreme) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.73 Tw
(Court has found that the laws of war apply to non-declared) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.48 Tw
(wars, for example the war in Afghanistan. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Hamdi v.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(Rumsfeld) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 542 U.S. 507, 518 \(2004\) \(holding that the deten-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.88 Tw
(tion of enemy combatants during conflicts is an incident of) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.47 Tw
(the rules of war\). Surely these circumstances result in situa-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.77 Tw
(tions in which fraud can easily be perpetuated against the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.77 Tw
(United States just as much as a formally declared war. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(purpose of the WSLAto combat fraud at times when the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(United States may not be able to act as quickly because it is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(engaged in "war"would be thwarted were we to find that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(the United States must be involved in a declared war for the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(Act to apply. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See generally) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Wartime Enforcement Fraud Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(of 2008, S. Rep. No. 110-431, at 1-3. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.58 Tw
(With these principles in mind, we now address the specific) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
(conflict in Iraq. On October 11, 2002, Congress authorized) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.82 Tw
(the President to use military force to "defend the national) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.07 Tw
(security of the United States against the continuing threat) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.11 Tw
(posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.88 Tw
(Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Authorization) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(for the Use of Military Force against Iraq \(AUMF\), Pub. L.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(107243, 116 Stat. 114 \(2002\). Although not a formal recog-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(nition of war, the AUMF signaled Congress's recognition of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(the President's power to enter into armed hostilities. Based on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(the foregoing analysis, we find that the United States was "at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(war" in Iraq from the date of the AUMF issued by Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(on October 11, 2002. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.11 Tw
(We now turn to whenand ifthe hostilities in Iraq termi-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.78 Tw
(nated. The Fifth Circuit recently considered this issue in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(Pfluger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. 685 F.3d 481. There the court determined that termi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(nation clause of the WSLA required compliance with the for-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(mal requirements set out in the clause because the language) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(of the clause was plain and unambiguous. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 485. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(agree. The pre-amendment and post-amendment WSLA both) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(specify that termination shall not occur until the Act's formal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(ities have been met. In the pre-amendment WSLA, termina-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
47 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.37 Tw
0 Tc
(tion occurs when "proclaimed by the President or by a) Tj
0 -13 Td
.38 Tw
(concurrent resolution by Congress." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.38 Tw
(3287 \(2006\).) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.28 Tw
(In the post-amendment WSLA, termination happens when) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.82 Tw
("proclaimed by a Presidential proclamation, with notice to) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.38 Tw
(Congress, or by a concurrent resolution of Congress." 18) Tj
0 -13 Td
.28 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.28 Tw
(3287 \(2011\). Neither Congress nor the President had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(met the formal requirements of the Act for terminating the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(period of suspension when the claims at issue were presented) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(for payment. We therefore conclude that the United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(was at war during the relevant time period for purposes of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(WSLA. ) Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(C.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
.27 Tw
(KBR next argues that the WSLA does not apply to Carter's) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(claims because the WSLA by its plain terms applies only to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(criminal cases. KBR bases its argument on the language in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(statute that states it applies to "offense[s] involving fraud" and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.78 Tw
(reasons that "offense" ordinarily means only crimes. 18) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.22 Tw
(3287. Resolution of this issue requires us to interpret) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the meaning of "offense" as used in the WSLA. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.8 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Dugan & McNamara) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 127 F. Supp. at 802-04, the court) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(examined both the legislative history of the Act and the mean-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(ing of "offense." The court reasoned that the term "offense") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(in the 1942 version referred only to criminal penalties. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(However, when amended in 1944, the phrase "now indict-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.23 Tw
(able" was deleted. The WSLA was then applicable to all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(actions involving fraud against the United States. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 802) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.72 Tw
(\("The 1942 statute with the phrase `now indictable' spoke) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(clearly of only criminal offenses. The 1944 enactment deleted) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.79 Tw
(that phrase . . . . This deletion leads us to the conclusion that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.41 Tw
(the Suspension Act then became applicable to all actions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(involving fraud against the United States . . . ."\). Further, all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(but one court, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Weaver) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 107 F. Supp. 963, 966) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(\(N.D. Ala. 1952\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(rev'd on other grounds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 207 F.2d 796 \(5th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(Cir. 1953\), to have considered the issue of whether the WSLA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(applies to civil claims have found that it applies. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.36 Tw
0 Tc
(United States v. Witherspoon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 211 F.2d 858 \(6th Cir. 1954\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.75 Tw
(United States ex rel. ) Tj
(McCans v. Armour & Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 146 F. Supp.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.62 Tw
(546 \(D.D.C. 1956\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. BNP Paribas) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. H-11-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(3718, 2012 WL 3234233 \(S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2012\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.35 Tw
(Had Congress intended for "offense" to apply only to crim-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(inal offenses, it could have done so by not deleting the words) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.98 Tw
("now indictable" or it could have replaced that phrase with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(similar wording. However, Congress did not include any lim-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.04 Tw
(iting language and it is our opinion that in failing to do so it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.8 Tw
(chose for the Act to apply to all offenses involving fraud) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(against the United States. Therefore, because we find the text) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(of the WSLA, the 1944 amendments, and the legislative his-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.92 Tw
(tory persuasive, we find that the WSLA applies to civil) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(claims. ) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(D.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
1 Tw
(The district court found that even if the WSLA was appli-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(cable to civil cases, it remains inapplicable to actions where) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.69 Tw
(the United States is not a party. The district court relied on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(this Court's decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel) Tj
(. ) Tj
(Sanders v. North) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(American Bus Industries Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 F.3d 288 \(4th Cir. 2008\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(for support that the WSLA includes actions brought only by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(the United States. This Court held in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that 31 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\), a special statutory extension of the FCA's stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(ute of limitations, was available only to the government. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(at 593. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s reasoning is further supported by the fact) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(that the FCA has a statute of limitations that applies specifi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.14 Tw
(cally to relators. 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.14 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(1\). The limitations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(period in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\) starts when the government knows or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(should know of "facts material to the right of action." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sand-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(ers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 F.3d at 294 \(quoting ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.03 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\)\). The court rea-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(soned: ) Tj
22 -26 Td
.42 Tw
(This language makes perfect sense when referring to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(an action brought by the government: the limitations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(period is based on the government's knowledge of) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
49 0 obj
<>
endobj
51 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
56 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
2.5 Tw
0 Tc
(`facts material to the right of action' because that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.11 Tw
(particular knowledge notifies the government that it) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.95 Tw
(has an actionable FCA claim. But applying the stat-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(ute's language to a relator's action makes no sense) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(whatsoever. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26.7 Td
.66 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 294 \(quoting ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.66 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\)\). Unlike in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, whether) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(the suit is brought by the United States or a relator is irrele-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.13 Tw
(vant to this case because the suspension of limitations in the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.53 Tw
(WSLA depends upon whether the country is at war and not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.43 Tw
(who brings the case. As such the district court's reliance on) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was misguided. ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
1.05 Tw
(Courts are "authorized to deviate from the literal language) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(of a statute only if the plain language would lead to absurd) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.9 Tw
(results, or if such an interpretation would defeat the intent of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.45 Tw
(Congress." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Murkeldove v. Astrue) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 635 F.3d 784, 793 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.22 Tw
(2011\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kornman & Assocs., Inc. v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 527) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.14 Tw
(F.3d 443, 451 \(5th Cir. 2008\)\) \(internal quotation marks omit-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.17 Tw
(ted\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( follows this logic, but this principle does not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.37 Tw
(exclude relator-initiated actions from the ambit of the WSLA.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.68 Tw
(Including such actions does not lead to "absurd results" nor) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
("defeat the intent of Congress." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In fact, including civil) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.25 Tw
(claims furthers the WSLA's purpose: to root out fraud against) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(the United States during times of war. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See generally) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Wartime) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(Enforcement Fraud Act of 2008, S. Rep. No. 110-431, at 2-5.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.63 Tw
(The district court's reasoning for relying on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(if the WSLA applied to a relator's claims this would "allow) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.42 Tw
(fraud [claims] to extend perhaps indefinitely." This is incor-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.1 Tw
(rect. The WSLA tolls the applicable period for a specified and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.16 Tw
(bounded time while the country is at war. By offering this) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.92 Tw
(rationale, it appears the court was critiquing the purpose of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(the WSLA itself and not providing a valid basis for excluding) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.9 Tw
(relator-initiated claims from the WSLA. Accordingly, we are) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.66 Tw
(unpersuaded that relator-initiated claims are excluded from) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
(the ambit of the WSLA. Thus, Carter's action is not time) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(barred. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
57 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
142.17 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(IV.) Tj
-130.17 -26 Td
.75 Tw
(We next consider KBR's argument that the FCA's first-to-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(file bar prohibits Carter's case from proceeding. ) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
1.75 Tw
(The FCA prescribes penalties for claims submitted to the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(government that are known to be false. While encouraging) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(citizens to act as whistleblowers, the Act also seeks to prevent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(parasitic lawsuits based on previously disclosed fraud. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(United States ex rel. St. John LaCorte v. Smith-Kline Bee-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(cham Clinical Labs., Inc) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(., 149 F.3d 227, 233 \(3d Cir. 1998\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(To reconcile these conflicting goals, the FCA has placed juris-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.8 Tw
(dictional limits on its qui tam provisions, including) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.66 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\)'s first-to-file bar and ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.66 Tw
(3730\(e\)\(4\)'s public dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(closure provision. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.96 Tw
(Under the first-to-file bar, if Carter's claims had been pre-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
(viously filed by another relator, then the district court lacked) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(subject matter jurisdiction. By the same token, the public dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(closure bar prevents a relator from bringing an action if the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(matters therein have already been made public knowledge,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(except if the person is an original source of the information.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(Although the provisions promote the same goals, they have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(different requirements. Here the district court ruled on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(first-to-file bar and did not consider the public disclosure bar.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Because of this, we begin with the first-to-file bar. ) Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(KBR argues that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the Texas action are related) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(actions that deprive this Court of jurisdiction under the first-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(to-file bar. This Court has described the first-to-file bar as an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(absolute, unambiguous exception-free rule. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(ex rel) Tj
(. ) Tj
(LaCorte v. Wagner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 185 F.3d 188, 191 \(4th Cir. 1999\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(Therefore, whoever wins the race to the courthouse prevails) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(and the other case must be dismissed. The text of the relevant) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(15) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
53 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
58 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(section provides that "[w]hen a person brings an action under) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.47 Tw
([the FCA], no person other than the Government may inter-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.6 Tw
(vene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying) Tj
0 -13 Td
7.85 Tw
(the pending action." 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
7.85 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\). Section) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\) is jurisdictional and if an action is later filed that) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.7 Tw
(is based on the facts underlying the pending case, the court) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.23 Tw
(must dismiss the later case for lack of jurisdiction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Wal-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.26 Tw
(burn v. Lockheed Martin Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 431 F.3d 966, 970 \(6th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(2005\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.55 Tw
(In determining whether a complaint is similar enough as to) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(be caught by the first-to-file bar, courts have applied varia-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(tions of a common approach. Although the approaches vary,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(courts have almost uniformly rejected an "identical facts" test) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(on the ground that the provision refers to a "related" action) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.02 Tw
(rather than an "identical" action. The courts also agree that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.23 Tw
(differences in specificssuch as geographic location or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(added factswill not save a subsequent case. The Third,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits have all adopted) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(a "same material elements test." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel) Tj
(. ) Tj
(Lujan v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(Hughes Aircraft Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 243 F.3d 1181, 1183 \(9th Cir. 2011\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(United States ex rel) Tj
(. ) Tj
(Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(560 F.3d 371, 378 \(5th Cir. 2009\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Walburn) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 431 F.3d at 971;) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(Grynberg v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 390 F.3d 1276,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(1279-1280 \(10th Cir. 2004\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel) Tj
(. ) Tj
(Hampton v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.65 Tw
(Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 318 F.3d 214, 217-218) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(D.C. Cir. 2003\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(LaCorte) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 149 F.3d at 232-33. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.86 Tw
(Under this test, a later suit is barred if it is based upon the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.54 Tw
("same material elements of fraud" as the earlier suit, even) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(though the subsequent suit may "incorporate somewhat differ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(ent details." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lujan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 243 F.3d at 1189. "[T]he test prevents the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(less vigilant whistle-blower from using insignificant factual) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(variations to allege what is essentially the same fraudulent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.87 Tw
(scheme already made known to the government." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(States ex rel) Tj
(. ) Tj
(Folliard v. Synnex Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 798 F. Supp. 2d 66,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(73 \(D.D.C. 2011\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel. Batiste v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(SLM Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 740 F. Supp. 2d 98, 102 \(D.D.C. 2010\)\) \(internal) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(16) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.71 Tw
0 Tc
(quotation marks omitted\). We find our sister circuits' reason-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.14 Tw
(ing persuasive, and we join these circuits in adopting the "ma-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(terial elements test." ) Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(C.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
.41 Tw
(We shall now apply the material elements test to determine) Tj
-12 -13 Td
3.07 Tw
(whether Carter's action is barred by either ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( or the) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(Texas action. The allegations in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Texas action, and) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.44 Tw
(herein are substantially similar. All allege that KBR had a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(systematic practice of overbilling the government for hours) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(worked by their employees. The employees were instructed to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(complete their time sheets without regard to the number of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(hours that were actually worked. These allegations of fraud) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(provide the government with enough knowledge of essential) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(facts of the scheme to discover related fraud. The government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(would likely investigate billing practices across the company,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(because ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( notes that the official national policy was to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.75 Tw
(bill correctly but that the employees were consistently) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(instructed not to do so. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.58 Tw
(Carter seeks to distinguish his action by pointing out that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(the other relators worked in different divisions and were truck) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(drivers, whereas he was a ROWPU employee. We are unper-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(suaded that these distinctions are material. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(Texas action both allege a broad scheme that encompasses the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(time and location of Carter's action. Even though the fraud) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(did occur via different types of employees and in different) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(divisions, this is insufficient to demonstrate that the scheme) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(Carter alleges is different from the one ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the Texas) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(relators allege. As the Fifth Circuit noted, "a relator cannot) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(avoid ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.67 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\)'s first-to-file bar by simply adding factual) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(details or geographic location to the essential or material ele-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(ments of a fraud claim . . . ." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Branch Consultants) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 560 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.53 Tw
(at 378. Here the fraud allegedsubmission of false time) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(sheets in support of claims for false paymentis the same in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(all of the complaints. Thus, Section 3730\(b\)\(5\)'s goal of pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(venting parasitic qui tam lawsuits would not be furthered if all) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(17) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
60 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.52 Tw
0 Tc
(three actions were allowed to proceed on the same essential) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(claims. ) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(D.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
.71 Tw
(Carter argues that regardless of the relatedness of his com-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.83 Tw
(plaint to the other cases, the other cases cannot continue to) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.41 Tw
(have a preclusive effect on his action. Carter argues that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(because the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and Texas action have been dismissed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(neither can be deemed a "pending action" under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.36 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.96 Tw
(Following the plain language of the first-to-file bar, Car-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(ter's action will be barred by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( or the Texas action if) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(either case was pending when Carter filed suit. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(action was filed in 2007, and voluntarily dismissed in October) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(2011, after the relator failed to serve the complaint on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(defendants. The Texas action was filed in 2007 and voluntar-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ily dismissed in March 2012, when the government declined) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(to intervene. Therefore, both actions were pending when Car-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(ter filed his complaint on June 2, 2011. Because we look at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(the facts as they existed when the claim was brought to deter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.64 Tw
(mine whether an action is barred by the first-to-file bar, we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(conclude that Carter's claims are barred by the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Texas actions. However, this does not end our inquiry. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.25 Tw
(Carter alleges that the district court erred when it dismissed) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(his complaint with prejudice on the ground that his action was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(forever barred by the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Duprey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( action. In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel) Tj
(.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(Chovanec v. Apria HealthCare Group, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 606 F.3d 361,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(365 \(7th Cir. 2010\), the Seventh Circuit reviewed a complaint) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(that was dismissed with prejudice because of a pending case.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(The court reasoned that once the initial complaint was no lon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(ger pending, the bar of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.92 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\) was inapplicable and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(Chovanec was "entitled to file a new ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( complaint." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(at 365. However, if a case is brought while the original case) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(is pending it must be dismissed "rather than left on ice." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(at 362. Although the doctrine of claim preclusion may prevent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(the filing of subsequent cases, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.11 Tw
(3730\(b\)\(5\) does not. This is) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(18) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
63 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.47 Tw
0 Tc
(especially true when the original case is dismissed on reasons) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.17 Tw
(other than the merits or dismissed without prejudice. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13 Td
.85 Tw
(362. Because Chovanec was entitled to file a new complaint,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.28 Tw
(the proceeding should have been dismissed without prejudice.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 365. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.41 Tw
(Similarly the Tenth Circuit has explained why an action) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(that is no longer pending cannot have a preclusive effect for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.56 Tw
(all future claims. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litig.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(566 F.3d 956, 963-64 \(10th Cir. 2009\). The court reasoned,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
("if that prior claim is no longer pending, the first-to-file bar) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.56 Tw
(no longer applies." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 964. "The `pending' requirement) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(much more effectively vindicates the goal of encouraging) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.8 Tw
(relators to file; it protects the potential award of a relator) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(while his claim remains viable, but, when he drops his action) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(another relator . . . may pursue his own." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.45 Tw
(We agree that once a case is no longer pending the first-to-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(file bar does not stop a relator from filing a related case. In) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(this case, both of the original actions have been dismissed.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(Because of this, the first-to-file bar does not preclude Carter) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(from filing an action. The first-to-file bar allows a plaintiff to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(bring a claim later; this is precisely what a dismissal without) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(prejudice allows a plaintiff to do as well. Therefore, Carter's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(only impediment at the moment is the district court's dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(missal with prejudice. And, as we have already concluded the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(district court erred in dismissing Carter's complaint with prej-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(udice. ) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(V.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
1.22 Tw
(KBR argues that this Court should affirm the dismissal of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(Carter's complaint on the alternative ground of the FCA's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(public disclosure provision. As noted previously, the public) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(disclosure bar removes subject matter jurisdiction for FCA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(claims that are based upon matters that have been disclosed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(publicly, unless the relator was the original source of the alle-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(gations. KBR alleges that Carter was not the original source) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(19) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
62 0 obj
<>
endobj
64 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
69 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.66 Tw
0 Tc
(of the information, and that he gathered the information from) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(another KBR employee. The district did not reach this argu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.75 Tw
(ment, having found grounds for dismissal elsewhere. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.3 Tw
(decline to address this issue for the first time on appeal.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(Because the district court should have the opportunity in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(first instance to address the facts relevant to public disclosure,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(we remand this issue to the district court.) Tj
142.17 -26 Td
(VI.) Tj
-130.17 -26 Td
2.5 Tw
(For the foregoing reasons we reverse the district court's) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(dismissal of Carter's complaint. Rather than address the alter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(native ground of the public disclosure bar for the first time on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(appeal, we remand this issue to the district court for further) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(consideration. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
144.288 -26 Td
(REVERSED AND REMANDED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-144.288 -26 Td
(WYNN, Circuit Judge, concurring:) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.17 Tw
(I fully concur in the fine majority opinion. I write sepa-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.76 Tw
(rately to address what appears to be the heart of the dissent's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(objections: that applying the Wartime Suspension of Limita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(tions Act, 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.03 Tw
(3287, to the False Claims Act, 31) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.17 Tw
(3729-33, actions in which the United States is not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(plaintiff or intervenor is unwise because doing so is contrary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(to the policy of strictly construing statutes of limitations and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.86 Tw
(the goals of the False Claims Act. In particular, the dissent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.08 Tw
(expresses concern that our decision will allow the False) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.68 Tw
(Claims Act limitations period to "extend indefinitely" and,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(consequently, will incentivize private plaintiffs to delay filing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(their claims to maximize their potential recovery. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 38) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(n.6, 38-39. Because it is not our place to second-guess Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(gress's clearly expressed policy decisions, I respectfully dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(agree with the dissent. ) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(When interpreting a federal statute, the "cardinal rule . . .) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.49 Tw
(is that the intent of [Congress] is to be given effect." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(NLRB) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(20) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
65 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.46 Tw
0 Tc
(v. Wheeling Elec. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 444 F.2d 783, 787 \(4th Cir. 1971\).) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.18 Tw
(Typically, we ascertain Congressional intent from the plain) Tj
0 -13 Td
.51 Tw
(language of the statute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( If the plain language of the statute) Tj
0 -13 Td
6.12 Tw
(unambiguously expresses Congress's intent, our inquiry) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.83 Tw
(comes to an end, even if we disagree with the policy) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(embraced by the statutory language. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Sunterra Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 361) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(F.3d 257, 269 \(4th Cir. 2004\). For, as the Supreme Court has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(explained, ) Tj
22 -26 Td
.22 Tw
(Our individual appraisal of the wisdom or unwisdom) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(of a particular course consciously selected is to be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(put aside in the process of interpreting a statute.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(Once the meaning of an enactment is discerned and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(its constitutionality determined, the judicial process) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(comes to an end. We do not sit as a committee of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(review, nor are we vested with the power of veto.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
1.17 Tw
(Tenn. Valley Authority v. Hill) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 437 U.S. 153, 194-95 \(1978\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.03 Tw
(Here, as the majority correctly concludes and the dissent) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(tacitly acknowledges, the plain language of the Wartime Sus-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(pension of Limitations Act extends the limitation period for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
("any offense" of fraud against the United States during a time) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(of war. 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.81 Tw
(3287. No doubt recognizing that it is not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(our role to question Congress's clearly expressed policy deter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(minations, the dissent relies on strained readings of the War-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.51 Tw
(time Suspension of Limitations Act and our precedent in an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(attempt to argue that, under the plain language of the Wartime) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(Suspension of Limitations Act, the term "any offense" does) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(not encompass False Claims Act actions in which the govern-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment is not a party. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.23 Tw
(First, the dissent appeals to our decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(rel. Sanders v. North American Bus Industries, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, in which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(we held that the False Claims Act limitations period tolling) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(provision, 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.57 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\), does not apply to False) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.76 Tw
(Claims Act actions in which the government is not a party.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(546 F.3d 288, 293. Section 3731\(b\)\(2\) provides that the stan-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(21) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
66 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
71 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.4 Tw
0 Tc
(dard six-year False Claims Act limitations may be tolled until) Tj
0 -13 Td
.15 Tw
("no more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.7 Tw
(right of action are known or reasonably should have been) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.74 Tw
(known by the official of the United States charged with) Tj
0 -13 Td
.01 Tw
(responsibility to act in the circumstances." In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we rea-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.82 Tw
(soned that Section 3731\(b\)\(2\) does not toll the limitations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(period for private False Claims Act actions because it would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(make little sense to have a suit's limitations period turn on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(knowledge of an entity that is not party to the action. 546 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(at 293.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.32 Tw
(The majority opinion correctly notes that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is inap-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(posite because it involved an entirely different statute, which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.8 Tw
(includes express language that supports distinguishing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(between False Claims Act actions where the government is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(and is not a party. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, at 13-14. Nevertheless, the dissent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(tries to analogize the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.22 Tw
(to Section 3731\(b\)\(2\), which was at issue in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(asserting that federal government conduct controls the limita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(tions periods set out in both statutes. In particular, the dissent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(notes that) Tj
22 -26 Td
1 Tw
([b]y the terms of the [Wartime Suspension of Limi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.51 Tw
(tations Act], the government is solely entitled to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(invoke and terminate the tolling provisions of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(statute . . . . The private ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( plaintiff has no con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(nection with these decisions and it seems odd to con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(clude that such a private plaintiff should be entitled) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(to the same limitations period as the necessary actor,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.52 Tw
(the government. There is no such clear statutory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(direction.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
.52 Tw
(Post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 33. But Congress does not "invoke" the Wartime Sus-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(pension of Limitations Act. Rather, the Wartime Suspension) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.34 Tw
(of Limitations Act becomes effective when Congress declares) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(war or authorizes the use of military force. The invocation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act is at most a terti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(ary consideration in Congress's decision to declare war or) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(22) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
72 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.47 Tw
0 Tc
(authorize the use of military force, and thus there is only a de) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.55 Tw
(minimus relationship between the government conduct dis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.33 Tw
(cussed in the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act and any) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(particular False Claims Act claim. By contrast, with Section) Tj
0 -13 Td
2 Tw
(3132\(b\)\(2\) the connection between the relevant government) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(conduct and a particular False Claims Act claim is quite close,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.1 Tw
(because whether Section 3132\(b\)\(2\) tolls the limitations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(period turns on the government's knowledge of the alleged) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(fraudulent conduct at issue in the particular False Claims Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(claim.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.6 Tw
(The dissent also places great weight on the fact that both) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act and its legislative) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(history are silent regarding ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( relators in False Claims) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(Act actions, arguing that this silence "strongly suggests that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(Congress did not intend the tolling provisions of the statute to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.14 Tw
(reach indiscriminately to any private plaintiff pursuing a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(claim for fraud against the government." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 37, 39. Yet) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(the Supreme Court has admonished courts to tread carefully) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.82 Tw
(in attempting to find meaning in statutory silence because) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(such silence is frequently amenable to multiple interpreta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tions: ) Tj
22 -26 Td
1.66 Tw
(Not every silence is pregnant. In some cases, Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(gress intends silence to rule out a particular statutory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(application, while in others Congress' silence signi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(fies merely an expectation that nothing more need be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(said in order to effectuate the relevant legislative) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(objective. An inference from congressional silence) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(certainly cannot be credited when it is contrary to all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(other textual and contextual evidence of congressio-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(nal intent.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
1.33 Tw
(Burns v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 501 U.S. 129, 136 \(1991\) \(quotation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(omitted\), abrogated on other grounds by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(Booker) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 543 U.S. 220 \(2005\). Here, finding meaning in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act's silence is improper) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(because the silence just as reasonably can be interpreted as) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(23) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
68 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
73 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.32 Tw
0 Tc
(indicating that Congress did not intend to distinguish between) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.4 Tw
(False Claims Act actions by private plaintiffs and those in) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.9 Tw
(which the government is a party as it can be interpreted as) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.25 Tw
(excluding actions by private relators from the ambit of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.32 Tw
(Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, as the dissent does.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.53 Tw
(Moreover, Congress's decision not to clarify the scope of) Tj
-12 -13 Td
3.12 Tw
("any offense" when amending the Wartime Suspension of) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(Limitations Act in 2008 in the face of numerous decisions) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(broadly interpreting "offense" in the Wartime Suspension of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(Limitations Act casts further doubt on the dissent's appeal to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(statutory silence. A canon of statutory construction is that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.86 Tw
("[w]e presume that when Congress amends a statute, it is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(knowledgeable about judicial decisions interpreting the prior) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.51 Tw
(legislation." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Porter v. Bd. of Trustees of Manhattan Beach) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(Unified School Dist.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 307 F.3d 1064, 1074 \(9th Cir. 2002\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(also ) Tj
(United States v. Langley) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62 F.3d 602, 605 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(1995\) \("It is firmly entrenched that Congress is presumed to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(enact legislation with knowledge of the law; that is with the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(knowledge of the interpretation that courts have given to an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(existing statute."\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.88 Tw
(Congress amended the Wartime Suspension of Limitations) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(Act in 2008 to broaden its scope by lengthening the tolling) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(period and clarifying that the statute applies to Congressional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(authorizations of the use of military force as well as declared) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(wars. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act, Pub. L. No.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.78 Tw
(110-417 ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.78 Tw
(855, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(codified at) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 18 U.S.C. 3287. Notably, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(amendment did not in any way alter, narrow, or circumscribe) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(the scope of the term "any offense." By the time of the 2008) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.31 Tw
(amendment, numerous courts had held that the term "offense") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(in the earlier version of the Wartime Suspension of Limita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.22 Tw
(tions Act encompassed civil fraud claims, including False) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(Claims Act cases, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Witherspoon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 211) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.99 Tw
(F.2d 858 \(6th Cir. 1954\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. BNP Paribas) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 884) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(F. Supp. 2d 589, 602-05 \(S.D. Tex. 2012\), and the only court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.61 Tw
(to address whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(Act applies to non-intervened False Claims Act actions had) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(24) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
74 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
76 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.23 Tw
0 Tc
(determined that it did, albeit in dicta, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.84 Tw
(McCans v. Armour & Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 254 F.2d 90, 90 \(D.C. Cir. 1958\).) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(We must presume that Congress was aware of these interpre-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.32 Tw
(tations when it amended the Wartime Suspension of Limita-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.52 Tw
(tions Act in 2008, and its decision not to amend the statute to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.18 Tw
(exclude, or even discuss, False Claims Act actions, let alone) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.7 Tw
(non-intervened False Claims Act actions, in the face of this) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.26 Tw
(precedent suggests that it agreed with, or at least acquiesced) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(in, these judicial decisions. In such circumstances, Congress's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(silence favors the majority's reading, rather than undermining) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(it. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.03 Tw
(Thus, neither of the dissent's rationales for reading ambigu-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(ity into the plain language of the statute is persuasive. There-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.01 Tw
(fore, we are left to conclude that when Congress said "any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(offense," it meant ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(any) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( offense, including offenses raised by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(private False Claims Act relators. Because the plain language) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act indicates that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(Congress intended the statute to apply to non-intervened False) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(Claims Act actions, it is not our place to question the wisdom) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(of this policy decision. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hill) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 437 U.S. at 194-95.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.74 Tw
(Even if the plain language of the Wartime Suspension of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(Limitations Act would allow us to consider the policy con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(cerns highlighted by the dissentthat our decision will "ex-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(tend indefinitely" the limitations period for False Claims Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(claims and will encourage would-be relators to delay filing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(their claimsI am not convinced that either concern is justi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(fied. First, the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act tolls) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(the limitations period for fraud actions for a bounded period) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(of time: the time during which the country is at war or other-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(wise engaged in a military conflict. 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.92 Tw
(3287. More-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(over, even if the informal nature of modern military conflicts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(renders the limitations period established by the Wartime Sus-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(pension of Limitations Act somewhat less definite, it is within) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(Congress's purview to determine that certain conduct is suffi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(ciently egregioussuch as defrauding the government during) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(a time of warthat an extended or indefinite limitations) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(25) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
75 0 obj
<>
endobj
77 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
82 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.25 Tw
0 Tc
(period is warranted. Indeed, Congress has elected to entirely) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.22 Tw
(do away with limitations periods for many federal crimes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(Charles Doyle, Cong. Research Serv., RL 31253, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Statutes of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.61 Tw
(Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 18-24) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(2012\). ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.21 Tw
(Second, any concern that our holding will encourage rela-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.96 Tw
(tors to sit on their claims in order to maximize recovery is) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.66 Tw
(alleviated by the False Claims Act's public disclosure and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.91 Tw
(first-to-file bars, which preclude a would-be relator from) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.6 Tw
(bringing a claim that is based on information that has already) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.83 Tw
(been publicly disclosed or that is "related" to a pending) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(action. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.95 Tw
(3720\(e\)\(4\), 3730\(b\)\(5\). Regardless) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(of the applicability of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.03 Tw
(Act, False Claims Act relators have an incentive to bring) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.26 Tw
(actions as early as possible to avoid having their claims dis-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(missed under either of these two provisions.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.74 Tw
(In sum, the majority correctly concludes that the plain lan-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(guage of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act unam-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.25 Tw
(biguously encompasses False Claims Act actions in which the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.3 Tw
(government is not a party. It is not this Court'sor any) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.88 Tw
(court'splace to revisit Congress's clearly articulated policy) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(determinations, even when we feel they are unwise. If, after) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.78 Tw
(reviewing our decision, Congress agrees with the dissent that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(limiting the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act to False) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(Claims Act actions in which the government is a party is the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.27 Tw
(best policy, it is free to amend the statute, as it did in 2008.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(Until that point, however, we are required to give effect to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.03 Tw
(Congress' intent, as expressed through the plain and unambig-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.37 Tw
(uous language of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.35 Tw
(that the tolling applies to "any offense." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Jerman v. Car-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.92 Tw
(lisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 559 U.S. 573,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.67 Tw
(130 S.Ct. 1605, 1624 \(2010\) \("To the extent Congress is per-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.91 Tw
(suaded that the policy concerns identified by the dissent) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.76 Tw
(require a recalibration of [a statute], it is, of course, free to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.97 Tw
(amend the statute accordingly. . . . This court may not, how-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(26) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
78 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
83 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.22 Tw
0 Tc
(ever, read more into [a statute] than the statutory language) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(naturally supports."\). ) Tj
0 -27.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(AGEE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(part:) Tj
12 -27.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(I concur with the majority opinion that the "first-to-file") Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
1.97 Tw
(rule does not act as a barrier to Benjamin Carter's ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.7 Td
1.25 Tw
(action against Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, and Ser-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.38 Tw
(vice Employees International \(collectively "KBR"\). However,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.05 Tw
(I do not agree with the holding in the majority opinion, princi-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.77 Tw
(pally section III D, that the Wartime Suspension of Limita-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.27 Tw
(tions Act \("WSLA"\), 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.27 Tw
(3287, tolls the six-year) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.05 Tw
(limitations period set forth in the False Claims Act \("FCA"\),) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.73 Tw
(31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.73 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(1\), when the United States is not the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.44 Tw
(plaintiff or an intervenor. For that reason, I respectfully dis-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.73 Tw
(sent from the majority opinion insofar as it would allow Car-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.83 Tw
(ter to proceed on those of his claims that fall outside the six-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(year FCA limitations period. ) Tj
146.502 -27.1 Td
(I.) Tj
-134.502 -27.1 Td
.36 Tw
(Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.36 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(1\), a civil action under the) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
.22 Tw
(FCA may not be brought more than six years after the date on) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.44 Tw
(which the alleged violation was committed. In this case, the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.03 Tw
(vast majority of Carter's claims against KBR stem from viola-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.77 Tw
(tions that allegedly took place before May 1, 2005.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Pursuant) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.85 Tw
(to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.85 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(1\), therefore, Carter had until May 1, 2011, to) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.66 Tw
(file his ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( complaint against KBR for it to be deemed) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.47 Tw
(timely. The latest iteration of Carter's complaint, however,) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.39 Tw
(was not filed until June 2, 2011. Thus, absent tolling, in some) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.06 Tw
(form, the bulk of Carter's claims are barred by the FCA's lim-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.7 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.31 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Carter alleges that KBR fraudulently submitted one voucher to the) Tj
-10 -11.5 Td
.1 Tw
(United States, totaling $673.56, on June 15, 2005. Because this was within) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.85 Tw
(six years of the filing of Carter's complaint in 2011, Carter's FCA claim) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(related to that voucher is timely. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -442.85 m 300 -442.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(27) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
84 0 obj
<>
endobj
79 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
87 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.06 Tw
0 Tc
(itations period because they did not take place within six) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(years of the filing of the complaint.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.2 Td
1.32 Tw
(In 1942, Congress unanimously approved the first version) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
0 Tw
(of the WSLA, which temporarily suspended the statute of lim-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.22 Tw
(itations in criminal contracting fraud cases arising out of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.18 Tw
(Second World War. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Act of August 24, 1942, 56 Stat. 747.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(Congress amended the WSLA in 1948, and the majority con-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.87 Tw
(cludes that the effect of those amendments was to extend the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.14 Tw
(reach of the WSLA to civil limitations periods, not merely) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.02 Tw
(those arising in the criminal fraud context. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Act of June 25,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.6 Tw
(1948, 62 Stat. 683, 828. The majority may be correct, but the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(issue is not without doubt.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.06 Tw
(In 2011, at the time Carter filed his complaint, the WSLA) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(provided: ) Tj
22 -26.2 Td
2.11 Tw
(When the United States is at war or Congress has) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.5 Tw
(enacted a specific authorization for the use of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.41 Tw
(Armed Forces . . . the running of any statute of limi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.9 Tw
(tations applicable to any offense \(1\) involving fraud) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.5 Tw
(or attempted fraud against the United States or any) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.62 Tw
(agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspir-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.17 Tw
(acy or not, or \(2\) committed in connection with the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
0 Tw
(acquisition, care, handling, custody, control or dispo-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.92 Tw
(sition of any real or personal property of the United) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.28 Tw
(States, or \(3\) committed in connection with the) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.01 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In addition to seeking to avail himself of tolling pursuant to the WSLA,) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.74 Tw
(Carter argued before the district court and on appeal that he is entitled to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.41 Tw
(the benefit of equitable tolling. Although observing that his equitable toll-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.86 Tw
(ing claim was improperly before the court, the district court alternatively) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.9 Tw
(held that "Carter cannot show that the instant suit is untimely due to cir-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.8 Tw
(cumstances external to his own conduct, and equitable tolling is inappro-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.14 Tw
(priate." \(J.A. 620 n.11\). I agree with the district court that equitable tolling) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(is unavailable to Carter. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.57 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Because I would hold that the WSLA does not apply in this case, I) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(would merely assume, without deciding, that the WSLA applies to civil) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(actions generally. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -362.95 m 300 -362.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(28) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
88 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.5 Tw
0 Tc
(negotiation, procurement, award, performance, pay-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(ment for, interim financing, cancelation, or other ter-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.95 Tw
(mination or settlement, of any contract, subcontract,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(or purchase order which is connected with or related) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(to the prosecution of the war or directly connected) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(with or related to the authorized use of the Armed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.37 Tw
(Forces, or with any disposition of termination inven-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(tory by any war contractor or Government agency,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(shall be suspended until 5 years after the termination) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.9 Tw
(of hostilities as proclaimed by a Presidential procla-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(mation, with notice to Congress, or by a concurrent) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.5 Tw
(resolution of Congress. For purposes of applying) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.78 Tw
(such definitions in this section, the term "war") Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(includes a specific authorization for the use of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Armed Forces.) Tj
-22 -26.6 Td
(18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(3287.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.41 Tw
(Carter argues that, by operation of the WSLA, the FCA) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.84 Tw
(limitations period was suspended in 2005, at the time KBR) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.77 Tw
(submitted allegedly false claims to the United States for pay-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.51 Tw
(ment. Accordingly, Carter posits \(and the majority opinion) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.91 Tw
(agrees\) that the WSLA precludes KBR from asserting the) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.03 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The majority opinion does not reach the question of whether the pre-) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.65 Tw
(or post-2008 version of the WSLA applies to Carter's ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( complaint.) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.3 Td
.19 Tw
(Ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 9. If the WSLA applies to this case at all \(and I believe that it does) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.9 Tw
(not\), it seems most likely that the post-2008 version of the statute would) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.55 Tw
(apply. This is so because the amendments at issue concern the limitations) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.06 Tw
(period for FCA actions and not the underlying conduct at issue. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Forest) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.68 Tw
(v. USPS) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 97 F.3d 137, 140 \(6th Cir. 1996\) \(new statute of limitations has) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.19 Tw
(prospective application because it applies to the filing of a complaint,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.83 Tw
(which occurred after the statute was enacted\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(but see ) Tj
(Chenault v. USPS) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.59 Tw
(37 F.3d 535, 539 \(9th Cir. 1994\) \("[N]ewly enacted statute that lengthens) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.72 Tw
(the applicable statute of limitations may not be applied retroactively to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.32 Tw
(revive a plaintiff's claim that was otherwise barred under the old statutory) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(scheme."\). ) Tj
10 -16.3 Td
(Thus, for purposes of this dissent, I will assume that if any version of) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
(the WSLA applies, it is the version as amended in 2008. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -314.45 m 300 -314.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(29) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
81 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
89 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.23 Tw
0 Tc
(statute of limitations as a defense in this case. For reasons) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(explained below, I do not agree with that construction of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(WSLA. ) Tj
144.504 -26 Td
(II.) Tj
-.336 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
1.57 Tw
(This appeal presents a quintessential question of statutory) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(interpretation, which we review de novo. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Maharaj) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 681) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(F.3d 558, 568 \(4th Cir. 2012\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.6 Tw
("As in all cases of statutory interpretation, our inquiry) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.64 Tw
(begins with the text of the statute." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Chesapeake Ranch Water) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.69 Tw
(Co. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Calvert Cnty.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 401 F.3d 274, 279) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.67 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 2005\). "In that regard, we must first determine) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(meaning with regard to the particular dispute . . . and our) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.35 Tw
(and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(States v. Bly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 510 F.3d 453, 460 \(4th Cir. 2007\) \(quoting) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(United States v. Hayes) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 482 F.3d 749, 752 \(4th Cir. 2007\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.44 Tw
(\(omission in original\)\). "We determine the `plainness or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(ambiguity of the statutory language . . . by reference to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(language itself, the specific context in which that language is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.'") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(United States v. ThompsonRiviere) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 561 F.3d 345, 35455) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 2009\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 519 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(337, 341 \(1997\) \(omission in original\). ) Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(I note at the outset that no case has ever held \(other than) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.27 Tw
(in dicta\) that the WSLA applies to civil cases where the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(United States is not a plaintiff or intervenor in the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(action. In the only case in which a court suggested the WSLA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.72 Tw
(did so apply, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel. McCans v. Armour & Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(146 F. Supp. 546 \(D.D.C. 1956\), the court's conclusion was) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(30) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
90 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
92 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(not the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ratio ) Tj
(decendi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of the decision and was clearly dicta. In) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
3.62 Tw
(McCans) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the relator brought a qui tam complaint against) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.81 Tw
(Armour & Co., a government contractor, alleging that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.92 Tw
(Armour sold certain pork products to war procurement agen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.06 Tw
(cies at prices in excess of limitations set by Congress during) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(World War II. Although the allegedly illegal sales were con-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.17 Tw
(ducted between 1942 and 1943, the relator did not file her) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.03 Tw
(complaint until 1954. While the district court discussed the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.32 Tw
(application of the WSLA tolling provisions to the relator's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.95 Tw
(complaint, it concluded that the complaint was not timely) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.07 Tw
(filed, even if WSLA tolling were applicable. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 551. Any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.75 Tw
(discussion of WSLA tolling in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McCans) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( was thus clearly) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.03 Tw
(unnecessary to the district court's holding that the suit was) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.9 Tw
(untimely. Accordingly, the court's references to the WSLA's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.81 Tw
(applicability to private plaintiffs is mere dicta. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Perez v.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.47 Tw
(Mountaire Farms, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 650 F.3d 350, 373 \(4th Cir. 2011\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.13 Tw
(\("This additional observation was not necessary to the Court's) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(resolution of the . . . issue that was the basis of its holding,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.5 Tw
(and we therefore conclude that the observation is merely) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(dicta."\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bettius & Sanderson, P.C. v. Nat'l Fire Union Fire) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(Ins. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 839 F.2d 1009, 1019 n.3 \(4th Cir. 1988\) \(Murnag-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(han, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part\) \("To reach) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.4 Tw
(out and decide what need not be decided is frequently deni-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(grated as ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(dictum) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(."\). ) Tj
144.498 -26.7 Td
(C.) Tj
-132.498 -26.7 Td
.4 Tw
(As there is no direct authority for application of the WSLA) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.27 Tw
(here, I find the reasoning in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States ex rel. Sanders v.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.96 Tw
(North American Bus Industries, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 F. 3d 288 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3 Tw
(2008\), a persuasive guide to our disposition of this issue.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( concerned the construction of 31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.81 Tw
(3731\(b\),) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(the FCA's limitations provisions; the same statute providing) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.28 Tw
(the statute of limitations in this case. That statute provides) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(that ) Tj
22 -26.6 Td
.33 Tw
([a] civil action under [the FCA] may not be brought-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(31) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
91 0 obj
<>
endobj
93 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
98 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
44 -8.4 Td
3.58 Tw
0 Tc
(\(1\) more than 6 years after the date on) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.22 Tw
(which the violation of [the FCA] is com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(mitted, or) Tj
0 -26 Td
1.83 Tw
(\(2\) more than 3 years after the date when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.04 Tw
(facts material to the right of action are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(known or reasonably should have been) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(known by the official of the United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(charged with responsibility to act in the cir-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(cumstances, but in no event more than 10) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(years after the date on which the violation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(is committed,) Tj
-22 -26 Td
(whichever occurs last.) Tj
-22 -26 Td
2.04 Tw
(31 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.04 Tw
(3731\(b\). The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( relator, whose complaint) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(was filed beyond the six-year limitations period described in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.57 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(1\), sought to avail himself of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.57 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\), which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(runs the limitations period from the time the United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(receives \(or reasonably should receive\) notice of the violation.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(We rejected that attempt.) Tj
12 -26 Td
4.05 Tw
(Although we observed that ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.05 Tw
(3731\(b\) applied to "civil) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.12 Tw
(action[s]" under the FCA, we held that the language of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.12 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\) could only be logically applied when referring to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(an action brought by the United States, not by a private rela-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(tor. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 294. In support of this holding we reasoned that "ap-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(plying the statute's language to a relator's action makes no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.06 Tw
(sense whatsoever. The government's knowledge of `facts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(material to the right of action' does not notify the relator of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(anything, so that knowledge cannot reasonably begin the limi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tations period for a relator's claims." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.81 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( court also made important observations about) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(the practical effect of allowing a private relator to claim the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(benefit of a statutory limitations period intended for the bene-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(fit of the government. It noted that extending the limitations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.6 Tw
(period for up to 10 years \(the outer limit provided by) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(32) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
94 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
99 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.74 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.74 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\)\) in the case of a private relator would create) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.1 Tw
(incentives contrary to the purposes of the FCA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 295.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.63 Tw
("[R]elators would have a strong financial incentive to allow) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(false claims to build up over time before they filed, thereby) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.72 Tw
(increasing their own potential recovery." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Critically, the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.77 Tw
(court went on to note that the relator's proposed construction) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.06 Tw
(would undermine the very purpose of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( provisions) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.56 Tw
(of the FCA: "to combat fraud quickly and efficiently by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(encouraging relators to bring actions that the government can-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(not or will not." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2 Tw
(Following the reasoning of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( in the instant case, I) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(agree with the holding of the district court that application of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(the WSLA to a suit brought by a private relator is inconsistent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(with the WSLA and its legislative history and would be con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(trary to the articulated goals of the FCA. Let me explain why) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(that is so. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.63 Tw
(At first blush, Carter is correct that the WSLA applies to) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.6 Tw
("any offense," involving fraud against the United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(\(obviously, when certain conditions are met\). But to read "any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.63 Tw
(offense" as encompassing actions by private relators is a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(superficial reading of the WSLA and fails to construe the stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.69 Tw
(ute in context. By the terms of the WSLA, the government is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(solely entitled to invoke and terminate the tolling provisions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(of the that statute, however, the text of the WSLA is entirely) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(silent as to private relators. The triggering and terminating) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(provisions of the WSLA are both related to and solely con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(trolled actions of the United States government: declaration of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(war or congressional authorization for use of military force) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(\(to trigger\) and congressional resolution or Presidential proc-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(lamation \(to terminate\). In either circumstance, Congress and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(the President possess the unique power to invoke the WSLA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(to toll the limitations period for fraud offenses: a period when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(the same government is thus released from a looming time bar) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(to bring an FCA claim. The private ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( plaintiff has no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(connection with these decisions and it seems odd to conclude) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(that such a private plaintiff, absent a clear statutory direction,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(33) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
95 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
100 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.46 Tw
0 Tc
(should be entitled to the same limitations period as the neces-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.74 Tw
(sary actor, the government. There is no such clear statutory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(direction. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.1 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we declined to find that the private party relator) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(could latch onto the ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.46 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\) exception since the relator) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(was neither mentioned in the statute or legislative history as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(authorized to do so. Similarly, here with the WSLA, we find) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(no mention of the private party relator in the statute or its leg-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(islative history: again, an odd basis upon which to extend the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(tolling of a statute of limitations which is to be strictly con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(strued. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Bridges v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 346 U.S. 209, 215-16) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.92 Tw
(\(1953\) \(holding that, because the WSLA is an exception to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(the "longstanding congressional policy of repose," it is "to be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(liberally interpreted in favor of repose"\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.84 Tw
(Simply reading "any offense" to encompass all offenses) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(regardless of whether the United States is the plaintiff, is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.52 Tw
(inconsistent with the nuanced approach that courts have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.98 Tw
(employed when reading the "civil action" language in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.36 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.36 Tw
(3731\(b\). We reasoned in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that "a civil action") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(should not be read to encompass all FCA actions, but rather,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.33 Tw
(should be read in context to include only those actions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(brought by the United States. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 F.3d at 294-95.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.67 Tw
(Here, the WSLA \(like ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.67 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\)\) mentions the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(States, not private relators. Thus the text of the WSLA, on its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(own, supports the proposition that only the United States may) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(take advantage of its tolling provisions. Nevertheless, I also) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(find that this interpretation is consistent with the purposes and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(legislative history of the WSLA. ) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(D.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
1.1 Tw
(The Supreme Court has described the rationale underlying) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the passage of the WSLA during World War II as follows: ) Tj
22 -26 Td
5.23 Tw
(The fear was that the law-enforcement officers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(would be so preoccupied with prosecution of the war) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(34) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
96 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
101 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(effort that the crimes of fraud perpetrated against the) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.82 Tw
(United States would be forgotten until it was too) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.12 Tw
(late. The implicit premise of the legislation is that) Tj
0 -13 Td
(the frenzied activities, existing at the time the Act) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.93 Tw
(became law, would continue until hostilities termi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2 Tw
(nated and that until then the public interest should) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(not be disadvantaged. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
.5 Tw
(United States v. Smith) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 342 U.S. 225, 228-29 \(1952\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 230 \(Clark, J., concurring\) \("Soon after the beginning of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(World War II, Congress realized that it would be impossible) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(for the Department of Justice currently to investigate and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(prosecute the large number of offenses arising out of the war) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(effort. Therefore Congress suspended the running of the stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(ute of limitations as to frauds against the Government . . . .) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(It is clear that Congress intended to give the Department more) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(time to apprehend, investigate, and prosecute offenses occur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ring `under the stress of present-day events' of the war."\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.81 Tw
(In other words, the Court recognized that the primary con-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(cern motivating Congress in passing the WSLA was the abil-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(ity of law enforcement to effectively police fraud against the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(government during the fog of war. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 21 Am. Jur. 2d) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(Criminal Law) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.07 Tw
(264 \(2013\) \("The purpose of the [WSLA] is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(to give ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(government law enforcement officials) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( additional time) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.91 Tw
(to discover and punish offenses related to the commercial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(aspect of war programs, where extensive war efforts render) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(them unable to deal with those offenses within the normal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(period of limitation." \(emphasis added\)\). This concern is evi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(dent in the WSLA's legislative history.) Tj
22 -26 Td
2.81 Tw
(During normal times the present 3-year statute of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(limitations may afford the Department of Justice suf-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(ficient time to investigate, discover, and gather evi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(dence to prosecute frauds against the Government.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(The United States, however, is engaged in a gigantic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.52 Tw
(war program. Huge sums of money are being) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(expended for materials and equipment in order to) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(35) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
97 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
102 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.71 Tw
0 Tc
(carry on the war successfully. Although steps have) Tj
0 -13 Td
.16 Tw
(been taken to prevent and to prosecute frauds against) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.87 Tw
(the Government, it is recognized that in the varied) Tj
0 -13 Td
.32 Tw
(dealings opportunities will no doubt be presented for) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.11 Tw
(unscrupulous persons to defraud the Government or) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.62 Tw
(some agency. These frauds may be difficult to dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.73 Tw
(cover as is often true of this type of offense and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(many of them may not come to light for some time) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(to come. The law-enforcement branch of the Gov-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
(ernment is also busily engaged in its many duties,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(including the enforcement of the espionage, sabo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tage, and other laws.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
.08 Tw
(Bridges) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 346 U.S. at 217 n.18 \(quoting S. Rep. No. 1544, 77th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.22 Tw
(Cong. 2d Sess\). Once again, the concern of Congress, as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(expressed in the legislative history, was the inability of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(Department of Justice and other federal law-enforcement enti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(ties to effectively prevent and prosecute fraud in light of other) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.57 Tw
(duties antecedent to waging war. The legislative history) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(makes no mention of private plaintiffs bringing relator actions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(against those allegedly engaged in fraud. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.85 Tw
(The legislative history of the Wartime Enforcement of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.13 Tw
(Fraud Act of 2008 \("WEFA"\), Pub. L. No. 110-417 ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.13 Tw
(855,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(which contained the most recent amendments to the WSLA,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(reveals that the same concerns motivated Congress in passing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(the 2008 amendments to the WSLA. In sending the WEFA to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(the full Senate, the Judiciary Committee report repeatedly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(emphasized the difficulty of investigators, auditors, and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(Department of Justice in ferreting out fraud against the United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(States during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(Rep. No. 110-431. Again, the legislative history is silent with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(respect to private party relators. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.3 Tw
(The purpose of the WSLA \(as articulated by the Supreme) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(Court\) and the legislative history of that statute confirm what) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(the text reflects: that Congress was concerned with the ability) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(of the federal government to police fraud when the resources) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(36) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
103 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
105 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.3 Tw
0 Tc
(of its law enforcement were stretched thin by war. Tolling) Tj
0 -13 Td
.24 Tw
(afforded law enforcement the ability to thoroughly investigate) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(allegations of fraud without compromising the ability of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.22 Tw
(United States to fulfill its military mission. Unlike federal law) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.51 Tw
(enforcement, private relators are not "busily engaged in . . .) Tj
0 -13 Td
.25 Tw
(many duties, including the enforcement of the espionage, sab-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(otage, and other laws." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bridges) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 346 U.S. at 217 n.18 \(quoting) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(S. Rep. No. 1544\). And extending the benefits of tolling to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.63 Tw
(private relators does not "afford the Department of Justice) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(sufficient time to investigate, discover, and gather evidence to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(prosecute frauds against the Government." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In sum, Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(gress has shown no intent to toll the FCA's limitations period) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(when the United States is not a plaintiff to the FCA action.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.33 Tw
(The complete silence as to relators in the legislative history) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(of the WSLA is all the more telling when one considers that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(the FCA, which was originally passed in 1863, was on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(books when the Congress considered the WSLA in 1942 and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.01 Tw
(the WEFA in 2008. "Faced with statutory silence, we presume) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(that Congress is aware of the legal context in which it is legis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.92 Tw
(lating." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 552 F.3d 327,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(334 n.4 \(4th Cir. 2008\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Progressive W. Ins. Co. v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(Preciado) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d 1014, 1017-18 \(9th Cir. 2007\) \(internal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(alterations omitted\). Thus, the fact that Congress did not men-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(tion ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( plaintiffs in the legislative history of any version) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(of the WSLA strongly suggests that Congress did not intend) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(for the tolling provisions of that statute to reach indiscrimi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.52 Tw
(nately to any private plaintiff pursuing a claim for fraud) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(against the government. ) Tj
144.834 -26 Td
(E.) Tj
-132.834 -26 Td
2.87 Tw
(Looking finally to the policies underlying the FCA, the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(majority's interpretation of the WSLA is plainly at odds with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(the goals of the FCA. The policy concerns underlying the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(FCA will be directly thwarted by allowing private relators to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(take advantage of the WSLA's tolling provisions. In this case,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(for example, Carter's claims arose in 2005, and application of) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(37) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
104 0 obj
<>
endobj
107 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
110 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.4 Tw
0 Tc
(the WSLA would extend the limitations period for his actions) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.72 Tw
(well into the next decade at least, depending on the date hos-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(tilities in Iraq are deemed terminated. Assuming for the sake) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(of argument, as the district court did, that the August 31,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(2010, presidential statement of "the end of our combat mis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.19 Tw
(sion in Iraq" was sufficient to end the tolling provisions of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.95 Tw
(WSLA,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(J.A. 628 n.33.\), Carter would have until 2019,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(nearly fourteen years after his claims accrued, to file a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(action. Before the district court, Carter argued that hostilities) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.88 Tw
(in Iraq have not formally ended, meaning that the limitations) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.63 Tw
(period would still be tolled today, seven years after the alleg-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.37 Tw
(edly false claims were presented to the government. When) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.81 Tw
(\(and if\) hostilities are formally declared terminated in Iraq, it) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(could be up another eleven years \(five years after termination) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.76 Tw
(of hostilities pursuant to the WSLA, plus the normal six year) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.57 Tw
(limitations period prescribed in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.57 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(1\)\) before the limi-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.25 Tw
(tations period would be deemed to have ended.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Such an) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.37 Tw
(expansive limitations period applicable to private ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
.5 Tw
(plaintiffs is unsupported by statute, legislative history, or pre-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(cedent.) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
3.58 Tw
(In this respect, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is again instructive, because it) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
3.56 Tw
(accurately described the differing incentive structures that) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.77 Tw
(motivate relators, as opposed to law enforcement, in the con-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(text of FCA actions. As ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( explained, a lengthy limita-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.98 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(It is not clear that this declaration meets the statutory prerequisites to) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.01 Tw
(end tolling as a matter of law, given the requirement contained in the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.02 Tw
(WSLA that the President give formal notice to Congress that hostilities are) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(terminated. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(3287. ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.55 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The majority opinion criticizes the district court for opining that the) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.32 Tw
(adoption of Carter's construction of the WLSA could permit the statute of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.1 Tw
(limitations "to extend perhaps indefinitely." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 14. But it is clear from) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.42 Tw
(the WSLA itself that tolling will continue until either the President makes) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.94 Tw
(a proclamation of termination of hostilities with formal notice to Con-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.88 Tw
(gress, or Congress passes a concurrent resolution to the same effect. The) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2.45 Tw
(record does not conclusively reflect that either Congress or the Chief) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.26 Tw
(Executive have acted in the manner contemplated by the statute. If they) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(have not done so, tolling will indeed extend indefinitely. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -340.35 m 300 -340.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(38) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
108 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
111 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.27 Tw
0 Tc
(tions period would create a "strong financial incentive" for) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.98 Tw
(relators to "allow false claims to build up over time before) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.92 Tw
(they filed, thereby increasing their own potential recovery.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
.23 Tw
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 F.3d at 295. The government, on the other hand,) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.67 Tw
(always has an incentive to quickly act to root out fraud) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.03 Tw
(against the United States. The lengthy limitations period of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(the WSLA, therefore, is uniquely helpful to a government that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(is otherwise hampered from enforcing anti-fraud laws by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(externalities of waging a military conflict. Applying that same) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(lengthy limitations period to relators is uniquely problematic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(because doing so thwarts the whole purpose of the FCA: "to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(combat fraud quickly and efficiently by encouraging relators) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(to bring actions that the government cannot or will notto) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(stimulate actions by private parties should the prosecuting) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.15 Tw
(officers be tardy in bringing the suits." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 317 U.S. 537, 547 \(1943\)\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(internal quotation marks omitted\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.66 Tw
(In fact, the concern identified by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is exacerbated in) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(the context of wartime enforcement of anti-fraud laws. As the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.15 Tw
(legislative history to the WEFA notes, "often," during war,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.38 Tw
("the Government does not learn about serious fraud until) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(years after the fact." S. Rep. No. 110-431. In contrast, private) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(party relators will be inclined to delay, allowing their poten-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.37 Tw
(tial recovery to increase, knowing that the government is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(unlikely to discover the fraud, and therefore unlikely to be the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(first to bring a claim against the perpetrators. Absent WSLA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(tolling, relators are at least restricted to a six year window in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(which to bring their claims. In the context of virtually indefi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(nite WSLA tolling, however, a relator could wait a decade or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(more to bring a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(qui ) Tj
(tam) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( claim, secure in the knowledge that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(law enforcement is otherwise too occupied with the exigen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cies of war to discover the fraud on its own. ) Tj
145.164 -26 Td
(F.) Tj
-133.164 -26 Td
2.07 Tw
(The majority opinion does not address the arguments set) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(forth above, but summarily dismisses ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( as inapplicable) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(39) Tj
-218.4265 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
109 0 obj
<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>>
endobj
112 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.01 Tw
0 Tc
(because, "whether the suit is brought by the United States or) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.67 Tw
(a relator is irrelevant to this case because the suspension of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.58 Tw
(limitations in the WSLA depends on whether the country is) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.22 Tw
(at war and not who brings the case." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 14. This is a mis-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.7 Tw
(reading of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the statute, and the legislative history.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.36 Tw
(Like the WSLA, the limitations period at issue in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.03 Tw
(not contain an express limitation on who could take advantage) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.41 Tw
(of the tolling provision. Rather, the analysis in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
1.87 Tw
(focused on whether ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.87 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\) could be plausibly read to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
9.28 Tw
(encompass actions brought by private parties. Like) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.07 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(3731\(b\)\(2\) in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanders) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the WSLA should be read in context,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.57 Tw
(keeping in mind both the purposes of that statute and the dire) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.25 Tw
(effects of extending to relators a provision obviously intended) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(only for the government. ) Tj
142.506 -26.2 Td
(III.) Tj
-130.506 -26.2 Td
2.4 Tw
(The text, the purposes, and the legislative history of the) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
2.11 Tw
(WSLA all counsel in favor of holding that the government) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.2 Tw
(only, and not private relators, are entitled to take advantage of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.37 Tw
(that statute's tolling provisions. Because the majority takes) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.73 Tw
(the altogether novel step of expanding the WSLA to apply to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.03 Tw
(actions by relators, I must respectfully dissent from that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(aspect of the majority's holding.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(40) Tj
70.5735 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLIBURTON) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
18 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
<>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>
endobj
21 0 obj
<>
endobj
22 0 obj
<>
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
85 0 obj
<>
endobj
86 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
<>
endobj
106 0 obj
<>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
113 0 obj
<>
endobj
5 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/DA(/Helv 0 Tf 0 g )>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 271.326 656.1 Td
(PUBLISHED)Tj
/T1_0 19 Tf
1.9 Tw 84.2 Tz -114.766 -40.2 Td
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0 Tw -66.696 -18 Td
( )Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
8.664 -105 Td
(NITED)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TATES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( ex rel. B)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENJAMIN)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz -8.664 -13.2 Td
(C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARTER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
80.988 -18 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.512 -18 Td
(v.)Tj
135.57 -13.2 Td
(No. 12-1011)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw -36.45 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -3.5 Td
(H)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ALLIBURTON)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (O)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.; K)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ELLOGG)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( B)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ROWN)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 0 -13.2 TD
(& R)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OOT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ERVICES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.; S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ERVICE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(E)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MPLOYEES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NTERNATIONAL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.;)Tj
T*
(KBR, I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
65.688 -18 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 115.932 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts -142.878 -26.3 Td
(Appeal from the United States District Court)Tj
-12.75 -13.3 Td
(for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.)Tj
21.684 -13.3 Td
(James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.)Tj
38.664 -13.3 Td
(\(1:11-cv-00602-JCC-JFA\))Tj
-1.128 -26.3 Td
(Argued: October 26, 2012)Tj
1.668 -26.5 Td
(Decided: March 18, 2013)Tj
-68.124 -26.2 Td
(Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.)Tj
2.18 Tw -18.756 -51.2 Td
(Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Floyd)Tj
3.07 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Wynn joined.)Tj
0.21 Tw T*
(Judge Wynn wrote a separate concurring opinion. Judge Agee)Tj
1 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(part.)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -84.15 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -153.1 cm
0 0 m
0 61.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -231.2 cm
0 0 m
0 61.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -238.15 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -408.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -512.75 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
/Artifact <>BDC
q
1 0 0 1 205.3235016 802 cm
/GS0 gs
0 Tw /Fm0 Do
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
11 0 obj
<>>>/Length 345>>stream
0 g 0 G 0 i 0 J []0 d 0 j 1 w 10 M 0 Tc 0 Tw 100 Tz 0 TL 0 Tr 0 Ts
BT
/TimesNewRoman 10 Tf
0 g
100.676 -7.842 Td
( ) Tj
0 -12 Td
( ) Tj
0 -12 Td
( ) Tj
-100.676 -12 Td
(Certiorari ) Tj
41.372 0 Td
(granted ) Tj
32.486 0 Td
(by ) Tj
12.5 0 Td
(Supreme ) Tj
38.047 0 Td
(Court, ) Tj
27.778 0 Td
(July ) Tj
19.17 0 Td
(1, ) Tj
10 0 Td
(2014) Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
120 0 obj
<>
endobj
119 0 obj
<>
endobj
122 0 obj
<>
endobj
114 0 obj
<>
endobj
123 0 obj
<>stream
HViTS=7 A0F& D@dn"2|8H&aJ" )*V
E UDe^Y7go !Y ݶ
# @y dyFkdž `4 TJ_3~v/ 8:GѠPp@z/ז4(ogb`k ptG^J 6!4Uw$}FpwF fr1 0q
?#^.'@ m Ke h&ԱfZ) ZzbDwTt=B~}lS.92%'ԯ5N3K\=H|="a+;