United States of America, ex rel. v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
- Sallie Kim
- 3:14-cv-01509
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In McLaughlin v. Shaw Environmental, Judge Donato amended the dismissal, ending claims against Tetra Tech defendants while allowing claims against Shaw defendants to proceed.
Kevin McLaughlin’s claims against the Tetra Tech defendants remain dismissed, while his claims against Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., Aptim Federal Services, LLC, and Aptim Corporation may proceed.
What happened
In United States ex rel. McLaughlin v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., the court reconsidered an earlier order that had dismissed the relator’s False Claims Act claims under the first-to-file rule. McLaughlin argued that the rule applied only to his claims against the Tetra Tech defendants, not his separate allegations against the Shaw defendants.
The court agreed that the earlier dismissal applied only to Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Tetra Tech Inc., IO Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., and Radiological Survey & Remedial Services, LLC. It amended the dismissal order, re-opened the case, and allowed the claims against Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., Aptim Federal Services, LLC, and Aptim Corporation to proceed.
The court also directed the parties to address whether this case and the related Jahr case should remain related under the local rules. Judge Donato issued the order on March 8, 2023.
The detailed version
- United States of America, ex rel. v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. · No. 3:14-cv-01509
- Sallie Kim
- Mar. 8, 2023
Background
This qui tam case was brought under the False Claims Act. The court had previously dismissed relator Kevin McLaughlin’s claims under the statute’s first-to-file bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), and closed the case. McLaughlin asked the court to amend the dismissal to clarify that the Tetra Tech defendants were out of the case but that his claims against the Shaw defendants could continue.
Although McLaughlin invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the court stated that no judgment had been entered, so that rule did not apply. The court instead considered the request under its inherent authority to review interlocutory orders, meaning orders that do not finally resolve all issues in a case.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the parties’ earlier filings were difficult to follow and that McLaughlin had referred to the Shaw defendants while making an argument he now said was intended only to support claims against the Tetra Tech defendants. McLaughlin identified separate allegations against the Shaw defendants involving contaminated water, wastewater treatment, radiological testing, and retaliation through termination and non-rehiring.
The court stated that the Shaw defendants did not show that these allegations were barred by the first-to-file rule. The court concluded that the rule did not preclude McLaughlin’s claims against the Shaw defendants because those claims were different from the False Claims Act claims alleged in the earlier Jahr action.
Disposition
The court exercised its authority to amend the dismissal order. It amended the order to dismiss the claims against Tetra Tech EC, Inc.; Tetra Tech Inc.; IO Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; and Radiological Survey & Remedial Services, LLC. The case was re-opened and will proceed against Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.; Aptim Federal Services, LLC; and Aptim Corporation.
The court also questioned whether the McLaughlin case and the Jahr case remained related under Civil Local Rule 3-12. It directed each party or affiliated party group to file a statement by March 16, 2023, addressing that issue. No further briefing was permitted unless requested by the court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.