Id. O'Keeffe v. Pan Am. 902(2). 3d 869, 873 (E.D. III purposes." United States ex rel. Carter resists this conclusion, based on unreasonable readings of certain statements from Carter III. KBR argues that either the Defense Base Act or the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act preempt the plaintiffs claims. The plaintiffs allege that KBR was not a party to the LOGCAP IV contract. We conclude that it does. R. CIV. The False Claims Act (FCA) empowers private individuals acting on behalf of the government to bring civil actions against those that defraud the government. 1441(a) ). 2012) ("[The plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress] will be dismissed because it can only be viewed as a negligence claim for which the exclusive remedy for the Plaintiffs is under the [Defense Base Act]."). But see United States v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., No. 3730(b)(5), and therefore violated the first-to-file rule. 1998) ("We have previously held that corporate entities qualify as persons under 1442(a)(1)."). About KBR KBR is a global engineering, construction and services company supporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power, industrial, civil infrastructure, minerals, Gadbois only addressed a situation where the relator sought to revise an FCA complaint with information pertaining to the related action that gave rise to the first-to-file defect. Id. If the contractor has significant discretion in the way it performs its duties, the military does not retain command authority. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. Co. v. J & J Maint., Inc. , 133 F. Supp. 2007) (alterations omitted) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. Placing profits over the safety of these individuals and contractors, KBR failed to evacuate them. APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David S. Stone, counsel for Petitioner, certify that on this I 61h day of 1. KBR highlighted other decisions suggesting that parent companies qualify as employers under the Act, but these were decisions on summary judgment motions, not motions to dismiss. 33 U.S.C. Kevin CLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KBR, INC., Defendant. See La. Contact us. Ins. UNITED STATES ex rel. (Docket Entry No. The plaintiffs claims arise from the work they performed under their employer's contract with the military and involve actions that took place on a military base. (quotation and citations omitted). Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 292. WebDue to an expansion in the scope of the contract, KBR provided support for up to 187,900 troops across 80 sites, the company said. WebSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Employer/Carrier- Respondents Associates, Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965). 1442(a)(1), to remove an action, even if the plaintiff's complaint raises no federal question, so long as the officer asserts a "colorable federal defense," Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 291. FED. Id. 3), is denied. See Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 296 ("[The government contractor] performed the refurbishment and, allegedly, the installation of asbestos pursuant to directions of the U.S. The first-to-file rule's statutory text, as explained above, plainly bars the bringing of actions while related actions are pending, and affords courts no flexibility to accommodate an improperly-filed action when its earlier-filed counterpart ceases to be pending. II. 2002). Jan. 5, 2017) (arguing that Gadbois failed to give sufficient weight to the plain language of the first-to-file bar) (quoting Carter VI, 315 F.R.D. This reasoning by the Supreme Court confirms that the only appropriate response for a first-to-file rule violation is dismissal. civ. (Id. 2012). 5. 12-1497), 2013 WL 3225969. P. 12(b)(6). Id. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999). The purpose behind the combatant-activities exceptionpreventing courts from second-guessing military decisionsdoes not require preempting torts that stem from purely private actions. The court will hear oral argument on the motion on October 27, 2021, at 10:00 a.m ., by Zoom. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610 (quoting Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Adjusted free cash flows1. KBR, Inc. (NYSE:NYSE:KBR) Q1 2023 Earnings Conference Call May 1, 2023 8:30 AM ETCompany ParticipantsJamie DuBray - Investor RelationsStuart Bradie - President and In the course of reaching this holding, however, the Court contrasted the seal requirement with the first-to-file rule, which the Court described as one of a number of [FCA] provisions that do require, in express terms, the dismissal of a relator's action. Id. Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense contractors and related entities that provided logistical services to the United States military during the armed conflict in Iraq. (Docket Entry No. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988), to determine whether a Federal Tort Claims Act exception preempts state law. at 43940. Thus, we reversed the district court's holding that the claims in the Carter Action were time-barred. The majority opinion further concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Relator leave to amend. Off. Today, KBR actively contributes to ongoing projects across North America, Europe, Russia and the Middle East. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. at 1979 (The False Claims Act's qui tam provisions present many interpretive challenges, and it is beyond our ability in this case to make them operate together smoothly like a finely tuned machine.). 2012) ; see also 42 U.S.C. 3730(b)(5)). The Federal Officer Removal Statute states: "Federal officers may remove cases to federal court that ordinary federal question removal would not reach." 3730(b)(5). An employer under the Defense Base Act is "someone whose employees are covered by the [Act]." Chovanec v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., 606 F.3d 361, 362 (7th Cir. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The Defense Base Act extends workers compensation coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act to "employees of American contractors engaged in construction related to military bases in foreign countries, and to foreign projects related to the national defense whether or not the project is located on a military base." The subject matter underlying this case involves Appellees'Halliburton Company; KBR, Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively KBR)alleged fraudulent billing of the United States for services provided to the military forces serving in Iraq. One plaintiff, Witherspoon, submitted a Defense Base Act Claim for Compensation stating that she was a "Senior Security Officer." The denial of the motion to dismiss is without prejudice to the defendant's ability to reurge the arguments, if appropriate, in a motion for summary judgment, after discovery targeted and limited to the Defense Base Act and combatant-activity defenses. (Docket Entry No. We then addressed the first-to-file rule. We affirm. 2d at 710. 2001) ("The LHWCA is a preemption defense. The third prong is also met. A federal defense is colorable "unless it is immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or wholly insubstantial and frivolous. " Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 296 (quoting Zeringue v. Crane Co. , 846 F.3d 785, 79394 (5th Cir. "); Ruppel , 701 F.3d at 1181 (" Acting under covers situations, like this one, where the federal government uses a private corporation to achieve an end it would have otherwise used its own agents to complete."). KBR's Vice President of Government Solutions submitted a declaration stating that KBR typically performs "operations and maintenance, laundry, water and ice production and delivery, firefighting, fuel delivery, and waste management" in Iraq. , 744 F.3d 326, 348 (4th Cir. at 7, 11). 1:11-cv-602, 2011 WL 6178878, at *8 (E.D. KBR did not clarify the relationship among KBR, Service Employees International, and the LOGCAP IV contract. website until it is completed. 2d at 664. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 2d at 710. See Martin v. Halliburton , 618 F.3d 476, 488 (5th Cir. See Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Id. Fisher , 703 F. Supp. KBR Technical KBR Technical is a payroll company that provides payroll services to the majority of KBR-related company employees in the United States. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (Carter VI), 315 F.R.D. KBR removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, the plaintiffs moved to remand, and KBR moved to dismiss. (Docket Entry No. at 877. The district court denied Carter's motion for reconsideration, explaining that Gadbois did not constitute new controlling law justifying reconsideration because it was decided outside this Circuit. Kellogg has no direct employees. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. 1651(a)(4). 2017) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. The defendant may file a motion for summary judgment no later than September 17, 2021. 3-1 at 1, 25-1, 25-2); KBR has an insurance policy, as required under the Act, (Docket Entry No. In a qui tam action under the FCA, a relator files the complaint under seal, and serves a copy of the complaint and an evidentiary disclosure on the government. Co. , 149 F.3d 387, 398 (5th Cir. KBR subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. The plaintiffs allege that they worked at the Al Asad base under the LOGCAP IV contract between the U.S. Army and Service Employees International. Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ("KB&RS"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Willingham v. Morgan , 395 U.S. 402, 407, 89 S.Ct. Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc. , 551 U.S. 142, 154, 127 S.Ct. The basis for our decision to dismiss was our view that Carter had violated the first-to-file rule by bringing the Carter Action while related FCA actions were still pending; the basis for our decision to dismiss without prejudice was our view that Carter could refile his case following the dismissals of earlier-filed, related FCA actions. Wood v. Allergan, Inc., No. WebDue to an expansion in the scope of the contract, KBR provided support for up to 187,900 troops across 80 sites, the company said. WebLaw360, New York (October 31, 2011, 9:24 PM EDT) -- A former Service Employees International Inc. operations specialist on Friday sued Service Employees and defense 1991). The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for certain tort claims against the federal government, but it contains several exceptions to that waiver. Because, on the current record, the court cannot reliably determine whether either defense is preemptive as KBR argues, the motion to dismiss is also denied. (Id. KBR, INC., KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICE, INC., KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LTD., and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. "Conversely, when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court." Second, Gadbois is factually distinguishable. Satellite, Ground Systems & Space Communications, Scientific Research & Laboratory Services, Earth, Environment & Space Science Monitoring, Noise, Vibration & Fluid Dynamics Engineering, Floating Production, Storage & Offloading (FPSO) Facilities, Commercial Cloud & Mission Service Platform, Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning. All rights reserved. 1-5 at 6). However, the Maryland Action was dismissed in October 2011, and the Texas Action was dismissed in March 2012. Courts have disagreed, however, about when state tort law has the potential to conflict with military decisions during wartime. In sum, the combatant-activities exception is designed to prevent courts in state tort cases from second-guessing military decisions, after the fact. 2d at 714 ("Any renovation activities required approval from the [the military] before they could be performed."). , 744 F.3d at 348. Unfortunately, KBR decided to ignore the unambiguous threats of retaliation levied by Iran following the death of General Qassem Soleimani. Id. See Carter III, 135 S. Ct. 1970. We clarified, however, that once a case is no longer pending the first-to-file bar does not stop a relator from filing a related case. Id. With respect to the third basis for reconsideration, Carter argues that the district court's decision to dismiss the Carter Action and to deny his proposed amendment was clearly erroneous and manifestly unjust. 1-5 at 49). Accordingly, the court denied Carter's motion for amendment on futility grounds. Saleh , 580 F.3d at 7. Adjusted free cash flows1. 2010), rev'd on other grounds , 667 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. "A party may remove an action from state court to federal court if the action is one over which the federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction." Ass'n Cas. Schmit v. ITT F. Elec. 1-5 at 613). Notably, KBR's petition never questioned this Court's holding that the first-to-file analysis depends on the set of facts in existence at the time an FCA action is filed. 3-1 at 1 n.1). The threshold issues are whether the claims belong in federal court and whether there are viable claims at all. We reaffirm this holding today. , 744 F.3d at 351 ("The district court therefore erred in resolving this issue before discovery took place."). 470, 95 L.Ed. We disagree. The D.C. We agreed with the district court that courts must look at the facts as they existed when the claim was brought to determine whether an action is barred by the first-to-file bar. Id. On this record, the court cannot conclude as a matter of law that KBR and Service Employees International were, or were not, under military command authority. WebInc. The Carter Action was not Carter's first attempt to sue KBR under the FCA. The record also shows that KBR's ability to control any civilian personnel, including the plaintiffs, was subject to the U.S. military's control over the Al Asad base, a forward operating base in Iraq. The court reiterated its view that the date that an action is brought is dispositive in a first-to-file analysis, and concluded that the fact that the Maryland and Texas Actions were both still pending on the date the complaint in the Carter Action was filed rendered the Carter Action precluded by the first-to-file rule. 3730(b)(2). WebOther than its ultimate parent (KBR, Inc.), Service Employees International, Inc. does not have any publicly traded affiliates. ; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense contractors and related entities that provided logistical services to the United States Bell Atl. Harris , 724 F.3d at 480 ; see also Burn Pit Litig. The district court, however, dismissed Carter's 2013 complaint on first-to-file grounds, because it was brought while the Carter Action was still pending before the Supreme Court. at 4). Carter then petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted that petition. 2301, 168 L.Ed.2d 42 (2007) ; see also Latiolais , 951 F.3d at 291 ("[The contractor's] status as a person and its federal contract with the Navy satisfy the first and second conditions. See McBurney v. Young, 667 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. In this case, the plaintiffs are suing the parent company of their employer; in Fisher , the plaintiffs sued their employer and other affiliated entities. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. (Docket Entry No. Welcome to the KBR First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. Grow. See In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig. See Carter II, 710 F.3d at 17781. 3730(d). WebService Employees International, Inc. (SEII) through KBR to work as an electrician in Afghanistan. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Halliburton Companys stock. 2d 639, 663 (S.D. Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; KBR, Inc.; and Service Employees International, Inc. (collectively, KBR), are a group of defense Duprey, No. 2012) ("We liberally construe this term."). The Act "establishes a uniform, federal compensation scheme for civilian contractors and their employees for injuries sustained" while working abroad under a contract with the United States. Other courts have rejected this test as excessively narrow because it limits the combatant-activities exception to "claims stemming directly from the use of force," excluding indirect wartime harms. We may affirm on any ground apparent from the record before us. As such, we conclude that Carter III left the above-described holding intact. World Airways, Inc. , 338 F.2d 319, 322 (5th Cir. 10). Although designed to incentivize whistleblowers, the FCA also seeks to prevent parasitic lawsuits based on previously disclosed fraud. United States ex rel. As discussed below, KBR asserts colorable federal defenses under the Defense Base Act and the combatant-activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Third, courts determine whether the "private service contractor [was] integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority." at 5.2). WebCajetan Okeh v. Service Employees International (2014) Jeremy Stokes v. Service Employees International, Inc. (2014) James Breashears v. Brown and Root As such, we concluded that the Carter Action must be dismissed under the first-to-file rule, because the Maryland and Texas Actions were pending at the time the related Carter Action was brought. (Id. Corporate Governance KBR's The FCA contains a provision, known as the first-to-file rule, which bars these private individuals, known as relators, from bringing actions under the FCA while a related action is pending. This conclusion, we add, was consistent with the conclusions of widespread, pre-Carter III circuit case law. SEII and KBR were affiliated companies that were bothsubsidiariesofHalliburton,Inc. Your download is being prepared. 2000). 11-684-RGA, 2017 WL 63006, at *12 (D. Del. (Docket Entry No. Congress could certainly have enacted a revival mechanism in the first-to-file rule statute notwithstanding repose and staleness concerns, but it has not done so, and we are not at liberty to create one. $ 16. Each step is examined below. 2017); United States ex rel. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. 3d 852, 858 (W.D. Courts have held that contractors were engaging in combatant activities when they managed latrines "for active military combatants on a forward operating base," Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Paul Papak OPINION AND The plaintiffs allege that KBR supervised the Service Employees International employees working under the LOGCAP IV contract. WebService Employees International performed services for the U.S. Army under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) IV contract. On remand, this Court addressed an argument pressed by Carter that he could rely on the principle of equitable tolling to render the Carter Action timely. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." From January to April 2005, Appellant Benjamin Carter worked for KBR at a water purification unit employed to provide clean water to American troops serving in Iraq. 12). Facts that may arise after the commencement of a relator's action, such as the dismissals of earlier-filed, related actions pending at the time the relator brought his or her action, do not factor into this analysis. 2015) ("We observe that sufficient federal direction has also been found under 1442(a) when a private contractor performed maintenance on generators at an Army encampment, based on the fact that this work was done under Army supervision and that the contractor could not expand the scope of its work without authorization.") We hasten to add that although our holding may reduce the number of duplicative actions that can survive the FCA's limitations, this reduction should have no material effect on the Act's objective of ensuring that the government is put on notice of fraud. 2d at 577 ("[T]he actions at issue were taken under the direct and detailed control of federal officers because [the contractor's] maintenance and power generation services at [a military base] were performed [under a contract] with the U.S. 2d 669, 683 (D. Md. Fisher , 667 F.3d at 610. Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. 1-5 at 12). Although the Carter Action was brought while related FCA actionsnamely the Maryland and Texas Actionswere still pending, Carter argues that the intervening dismissals of the latter actions dictate that the dismissal of the Carter Action on first-to-file grounds was unwarranted. A Zoom link will be sent to the parties. Id. Our precedent on this issue is clear: The first-to-file rule is designed to restrict the bringing of certain types of suits, so when a relator brings an FCA action to court in violation of the first-to-file rule, the court must dismiss the action. Carson, 851 F.3d at 302. 2d 344, 347 (D.D.C. Put another way, [o]ne brings' an action by commencing suit. United States ex rel. The fact that the Maryland Action had been dismissed prior to the district court's ruling on the Carter Action gave the court no pause, because it believed that whether a qui tam action is barred by [the first-to-file rule] is determined by looking at the facts as they existed when the action was brought. United States ex rel. 1-1 at 5.1, 5.36). Beauchamp v. Academi Training Ctr., 816 F.3d 37, 39 (4th Cir. Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Raymond B. Biagini, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, Susan D. Noe Wilson, Schouest, Bamdas, Soshea & BenMaier, PLLC, Houston, TX, for Defendant. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs claims were barred under the Defense Base Act. Courts have offered three main views. 56, 59 (E.D. See United States ex rel. We cannot support Carter's reading. Mesa v. California , 489 U.S. 121, 136, 109 S.Ct. Feb. 8, 1999). A relator who brings a meritorious qui tam action receives attorney's fees, court costs, and a percentage of recovered proceeds. An FCA violator may be held responsible for treble damages in addition to civil penalties. Burn Pit Litig. (citation omitted). Were proud of our company and our work, and we would be happy to tell you more about it. The plaintiffs were working under a predecessor to the LOGCAP IV contract at issue here. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Va. filed June 2, 2011). This site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. Under the employment agreement, Rogers agreed to submit any claims to arbitration in accordance with the Halliburton Dispute Resolution Program 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. (Docket Entry No. 8. See 31 U.S.C. , 744 F.3d at 347 (applying the Saleh test); Harris , 724 F.3d at 479 (same). Med. P. 8(a)(2). WebKBR was created in 1998 when M.W. (Id. State tort law significantly conflicts with this unique federal interest when the military has at least some control over the military contractor's allegedly tortious actions. The Supreme Court, therefore, agreed with this Court's conclusion that dismissal with prejudice of any timely aspect of the Carter Action was improper. Liability under the FCA is no small matter. In a 29-page ruling, the federal district court in Oregon considered the motion by KBR and co-defendants Overseas Administration Services, Ltd. and Service Employees International, Inc. to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and rejected it. WebBrown & Root provides engineering consulting services, including project management, operations and maintenance including: Industrial Small-Cap Construction; Installation; Maintenance; Repair; Turnaround services. In his complaint, Carter alleged that KBR had violated the FCA by fraudulently billing the government in connection with its water purification services.2. For a discussion of unsuccessful, pre-Carter Action suits brought by Carter against KBR, see United States ex rel. 2012). Co. v. United States ex rel. 1937 (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. Tex. Cuvillier v. Taylor , 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. Id. , 744 F.3d at 349. This view aligns with the exception's text, which states that the exception applies to "[a]ny claim arising out of combatant activities." Aiello , 751 F. Supp. Because we need not do so, we decline to comment on the other reasons the district court identified as justifying its rejection of Carter's effort to circumvent dismissal through amendment. Carter v. Halliburton Co. (the Carter Action), No. Carter timely noticed an appeal of the district court's rulings dismissing the Carter Action, denying Carter's motion for amendment, and denying Carter's motion for reconsideration. The Court held that the appropriate response to a seal violation was left to the discretion of the district court, in light of Congressional silence on the issue of how to sanction a seal violation. Circuit suggested that the combatant-activities exception eliminates "tort from the battlefield." 1291. We have previously held otherwise, see Carson, 851 F.3d at 303, and we do not attempt to revisit this Circuit's rule here. In January 2007, he visited the medical We disagree. In particular, the majority opinion finds that the district court did not reversibly err in denying Relator leave to amend solely on grounds that his proposed amendment did not address any matters potentially relevant to the first-to-file rule, such as the dismissals of the [earlier-filed, related actions]. Ante at 20. The result of this welcoming mindset informs everything we do and accomplish, and has earned the respect of the worlds most renowned institutions. The term "suggests that [the combatant-activities] immunity is quite broad." The plaintiffs allege that they were working for a military contractor at an overseas military base and were injured when a foreign country attacked the base with missiles. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The FCA's liability scheme is enforced through civil actions filed by the government, 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(5). The plaintiffs sued KBR in Texas state court for negligence and gross negligence, alleging that KBR was "aware of the heightened risk of a strike in the face of escalating regional violence," but "left [the] Plaintiffs and the other employees of Service Employees International at the base, in direct risk of substantial harm." Finally, the court explained that neither the Wartime Suspension and Limitations Act (WSLA) nor the principle of equitable tolling could toll the statute of limitations on the Carter Action's claims. WebKBR holds all leaders and employees to the highest standards of business and personal integrity, abiding by the strictest ethical and legal standards. Programs , 461 U.S. 624, 636, 103 S.Ct. Va. 2015). 2010) case opinion from the District of Oregon U.S. Federal District Court Fisher , 667 F.3d at 613. AFIA/CIGNA Worldwide v. Felkner , 930 F.2d 1111, 1112 (5th Cir. Finally, we note that KBR is not without policy arguments of its own. Section 1442(a) permits "any officer of the United States or person acting under [him or her]," 28 U.S.C. The Fifth Circuit has held that, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, an employee can have multiple "employers," each of which is entitled to immunity. WebCareers at KBR | KBR job opportunities Belong. See United States ex rel. Kellogg merged with Brown & Root Engineering and Construction creating one of the worlds premiere engineering, procurement, construction (EPC) and services companies. 2680(j). Claimant began working for employer in Iraq as a heavy truck driver in January 2005 and later became a convoy commander. Burn Pit Litig. & Prod. Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Raymond B. Biagini, Pro Hac Vice, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, Susan D. Noe Wilson, Schouest, Bamdas, Soshea & BenMaier, PLLC, Houston, TX, for Defendant. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. Soodavar v. Unisys Corp., 178 F. Supp. Rule 8 "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Instead, KBR is the parent company of Service Employees International, the plaintiffs employer. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , 951 F.3d 286, 29091 (5th Cir. at 481 ("After all, if the contractors conduct did follow from the military's decisions or orders, then the conduct would presumably not be in violation of the contract."). at 1979. To determine whether the combatant-activities exception preempts a state tort claim, courts apply the "command-authority" test.