United States Of America et al v. Morpho S.A., et al
Filing
120
Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting in part 99 Motion for Attorney Fees.(lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
v.
14
15
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
SAFRAN GROUP, S.A., et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 99
Defendants.
16
17
On August 25, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Relators’ third
18
19
amended complaint with prejudice. ECF No. 85. Before the Court is a motion for attorneys’ fees
20
filed by Defendant Morpho, S.A. a.k.a. Safran Identity & Security, S.A. (“Safran Security”). ECF
21
No. 99-1 (“Mot.”). Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the
22
record in this case, the Court GRANTS in part Safran Security’s motion for attorneys’ fees.
23
I.
24
25
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
The facts of this case are set out in detail in this Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion
26
to dismiss Relators’ third amended complaint with prejudice. They are briefly summarized as
27
relevant here.
28
1
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
This case is a qui tam action under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §
2
3729 et seq., and the California False Claims Act (“California FCA”, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12651 et
3
seq. Relators Vincent Hascoet and Phillipe Desbois (collectively, “Relators”) sued Defendants
4
Safran Group, S.A. (“Safran Global”), Safran Security, and Safran U.S.A., Inc. (“Safran USA”)
5
(collectively, “Defendants”) under the FCA and California FCA on behalf of the United States and
6
California. Relators are former employees of Defendants, and Relators brought this action to
7
recover on fraudulent claims for payment that Defendants allegedly submitted to the United States
8
and California.
9
Specifically, Relators’ claims against Safran Security were based on three allegations.
First, Relators alleged that Safran Security sold fingerprint identification products that it created to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the United States and California, and that Safran Security “falsely claimed that the algorithms used
12
in such fingerprint identification technology was, and is, French technology,” when in fact it was
13
“prohibited Russian technology.” TAC ¶ 16. Second, Relators alleged that Safran Security
14
expressly or impliedly certified that Safran Security was in compliance with the Federal
15
Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7, when in fact
16
all Defendants had an agreement with a Russian company called Papillon not to compete in each
17
other’s markets. Third, Relators alleged that Safran Security expressly or impliedly certified that
18
it was in compliance with the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. §§ 2501–581, even though Safran Security
19
was allegedly in violation of the Trade Act.
20
21
B. Procedural History
On February 17, 2015, Relators filed this case under seal in this Court. ECF No. 1. On
22
April 19, 2016, the United States declined to intervene. ECF No. 5. On July 29, 2016, California
23
also declined to intervene. ECF No. 13. On August 5, 2016, this case was unsealed. ECF No. 14.
24
25
26
27
28
On August 10, 2016, Relators filed a first amended complaint. ECF No. 16. On October
25, 2016, Relators filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 38.
On November 8, 2016, Safran USA filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. ECF No. 45.
Relators opposed the motion to dismiss on November 22, 2016. ECF No. 45. Safran USA filed a
2
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
reply on November 29, 2016. ECF No. 46.
On January 19, 2017, this Court dismissed the SAC without prejudice. ECF No. 54.
3
Specifically, the Court held that Relators had failed to plead a claim with sufficient particularity,
4
as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Id. The Court ordered that if Relators chose
5
to file an amended complaint, they must do so within twenty-one days. Accordingly, the deadline
6
for Relators to file an amended complaint was February 9, 2017. The Court noted that “[f]ailure
7
to meet the twenty-one day deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the
8
deficiencies identified in this Order will result in a dismissal with prejudice of Relators’ deficient
9
claims and deficient prayer for damages.” Id. at 24. The Court also ordered that “Relators may
not add new causes of action or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties.” Id.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
On February 10, 2017, the day after the deadline for Relators to file a third amended
12
complaint, Defendants filed a Notice of Relators’ Non-Filing of Third Amended Complaint and
13
requested that the Court dismiss the SAC with prejudice and without leave to amend. ECF No.
14
59. That same day, Relators filed a third amended complaint. ECF No. 60. Relators also filed an
15
Ex Parte Application Pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(1) for Relief From January 19, 2017 Order Granting
16
Relators 21 Days to File Third Amended Complaint, Where Relators’ Counsel Mistakenly
17
Calendared the Due Date as February 10 and Thus E-Filed Such Third Amended Complaint One
18
Day Late. ECF No. 61 (“Ex Parte Application”).
19
Defendants filed an opposition to Relators’ Ex Parte Application on February 10, 2017.
20
ECF No. 64. In Defendants’ opposition, Defendants argued that Relators had acknowledged the
21
correct deadline to file a TAC in a separate filing to the Court on February 1, 2017, and so
22
Relators should not be permitted to file the TAC late. In addition, Defendants argued that new
23
parties had been added to the late-filed TAC, namely, MorphoTrak and MorphoTrust. Defendants
24
argued that Relators’ addition of the new Defendants without Court order was in violation of the
25
Court’s January 19, 2017 order dismissing the SAC. ECF No. 64. On February 12, 2017,
26
Relators filed a reply to Defendants’ opposition. ECF No. 65. Defendants filed a sur-reply on
27
February 14, 2017. ECF No. 67.
28
3
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
On February 17, 2017, the Court granted Relators’ Ex Parte Application and allowed
2
Relators to file the TAC past the February 9, 2017 deadline. ECF No. 68. However, the Court did
3
not allow Relators to add new defendants to the TAC. Rather, the Court noted that new parties
4
could only be added to the TAC by leave of Court, which Relators had not requested. ECF No.
5
68.
6
On February 28, 2017, Relators filed a Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended
7
Complaint, which sought leave of Court to add MorphoTrak and MorphoTrust as defendants.
8
ECF Nos. 73, 78. On March 14, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition, ECF No. 79. On March
9
20, 2017, Relators filed a reply. ECF No. 80.
10
On May 9, 2017, the Court denied Relators’ Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Complaint and struck MorphoTrust and MorphoTrak as defendants from the TAC. ECF No. 83.
12
On May 12, 2017, Relators filed a revised TAC removing MorphoTrust and MorphoTrak as
13
defendants. ECF No. 84.
14
On May 26, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the TAC. ECF No. 85. Relators filed an
15
opposition on June 9, 2017, ECF No. 86, and Safran Security filed a reply on June 16, 2017. ECF
16
Nos. 90. The other Defendants joined Safran Security’s reply on the same day. ECF No. 92.
17
On August 25, 2017, this Court dismissed the TAC with prejudice. ECF No. 97. Once
18
again, the Court found that Relators had failed to plead a claim with sufficient particularity to
19
satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Id. The Court determined that dismissal with
20
prejudice was appropriate because “Relators ‘fail[ed] to cure deficiencies by amendments
21
previously allowed.’” Id. at 28 (quoting Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876,
22
892–93 (9th Cir. 2010)).
23
On September 8, 2017, Safran Security filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees. Mot.
24
Relators filed an opposition to the motion for attorneys’ fees on October 20, 2018, ECF No. 108
25
(“Opp.”), and Safran Security filed a reply on November 3, 2017. ECF No. 113 (“Reply”).
26
27
28
4
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to the False Claims Act
Safran Security seeks attorneys’ fees “incurred in connection with moving to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint.” Mot. at 2. Safran Security seeks these fees pursuant to the False
Claims Act (“FCA”).
As discussed above, Relators’ causes of action against Safran Security were based on three
theories for why Safran Security’s claims were false: (1) Safran Security identified France as the
origin of parts of the fingerprint identification software it sold to the United States and California,
when in fact those parts came from Russia; (2) Safran Security expressly or impliedly certified
that it was in compliance with the FAR and the Sherman Antitrust Act, when in fact it was not; (3)
Safran Security expressly or implied certified that it was in compliance with the Trade Act, when
in fact it was not. The Court finds that the latter two theories were clearly frivolous, and therefore,
pursuant to the FCA, Safran Security is entitled to the attorneys’ fees it incurred in defending
against those two theories while moving to dismiss the TAC. However, the Court also finds that
Safran Security is not entitled to the attorneys’ fees it incurred in defending against Relators’ first
theory of falsity. The Court explains each finding in turn.
1. False Certification of Compliance With Antitrust Laws and Trade Act
The FCA provides that “[i]f the Government does not proceed with the action [brought
pursuant to the FCA] and the person bringing the action conducts the action, the court may award
to the defendant its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses if (1) the defendant prevails in the
action and (2) the court finds that the claim of the person bringing the action was clearly frivolous,
clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4). An
action is “clearly frivolous” when the argument is wholly without merit, or when the result is
obvious. See Pfingston v. Ronan Eng’g Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th Cir.2000). “An action is
‘clearly vexatious’ or ‘brought primarily for purposes of harassment’ when the plaintiff pursues
the litigation with an improper purpose, such as to annoy or embarrass the defendant.” Id. (citing
Patton v. Cty. of Kings, 857 F.2d 1379, 1381 (9th Cir.1988)). The Ninth Circuit has “stress[ed]”
5
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
that “[t]he award of fees under the False Claims Act is reserved for rare and special
2
circumstances.” Id. at 1006–07.
3
With regards to Relators’ theories that Safran Security falsely certified that it was in
4
compliance with (1) antitrust laws and regulations; and (2) the Trade Act, the Court found in its
5
January 19, 2017 order dismissing the SAC that the factual allegations in the SAC underlying both
6
of these false certification theories failed to meet the heightened pleading standard in Federal Rule
7
of Civil Procedure 9(b). Specifically, as to the alleged antitrust violations, the Court found that
8
Relators’ SAC did not specify who made the false certifications of compliance with antitrust laws
9
and regulations, when those false certifications were made, or in what context the false
certifications were made. ECF No. 54 at 18–21. Similarly, as to the alleged Trade Act violations,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the Court found that Relators’ SAC failed to identify who made the false certifications of
12
compliance with the Trade Act and when such false certifications occurred. Id. at 19–20. Then,
13
despite being warned of these deficiencies in their SAC, Relators filed a TAC that pled no
14
additional facts about either theory. ECF No. 97 at 27–28. Thus, the Court concluded in its
15
August 25, 2017 order dismissing the TAC that “the TAC’s antitrust theory of falsity fails to
16
satisfy Rule 9(b) for the same reasons that led to the SAC’s dismissal” and that “the TAC’s Trade
17
Act theory of falsity fails to satisfy Rule 9(b).” Id.
18
Because the Court’s order dismissing the SAC detailed the ways in which the factual
19
allegations in the SAC underlying these two theories of falsity were insufficient to satisfy Rule
20
9(b), and because Relators subsequently reasserted these theories of falsity in their TAC without
21
adding any new factual allegations, the Court finds that these theories of falsity were “clearly
22
frivolous” pursuant to the FCA. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4). In light of the Court’s order
23
dismissing the SAC, it was “obvious” that reasserting the same theories of false certification in the
24
TAC without adding any new facts would result in failure. Pfingston, 284 F.3d 999 at 1006.
25
Further, the fact that Relators could not muster any basic facts about the who, when, and where of
26
these false certifications despite being afforded multiple opportunities to do so, and despite
27
allegedly being “insiders privy to a fraud on the government,” Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d
28
6
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001), suggests that these theories of falsity were “utterly lacking in . . .
2
evidentiary support.” U.S. ex. rel. J. Cooper & Assocs., Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Grp, Inc., 422 F.
3
Supp. 2d 225, 237 (D.D.C. 2006). As a result, the Court concludes that Safran Security is entitled
4
to the attorneys’ fees it incurred in defending against these two obviously insufficiently pled
5
theories of falsity while moving to dismiss the TAC.
6
2. Concealing the Russian Origin of the Fingerprint Identification Software
7
Unlike the two theories of falsity discussed above, the Court finds that Relators’ theory
8
that Safran Security concealed the Russian origin of the fingerprint technology it sold was not
9
“clearly frivolous,” “clearly vexatious,” or “brought primarily for purposes of harassment” within
the meaning of the FCA. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4). As to this particular theory of falsity, in its
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
order dismissing the SAC, the Court found that Relators failed to sufficiently allege (1) the “who,
12
what, where, when, and how” of the alleged scheme to conceal the Russian origin of the
13
fingerprint identification products; and (2) “who the sales [of the fingerprint identification
14
products] were made to and when the sales were made.” ECF No. 54 at 17–21 (quoting Vess v.
15
Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003). Relators then filed a TAC that
16
alleged additional facts regarding Relators’ false identification of origin theory. Specifically, in an
17
apparent effort to cure the deficiencies that the Court found in the SAC, Relators’ TAC included
18
more details about the alleged scheme to conceal the Russian origin of the fingerprint
19
identification products, and also detailed “roughly four sales or contracts that they allege are
20
fraudulent for failure to disclose the alleged Russian origin of the fingerprint identification
21
software.” ECF No. 97 at 22.
22
Based on these new facts in the TAC, the Court found in its order dismissing the TAC that
23
“Relators have sufficiently pled the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ of the general misconduct
24
that Relators allege underpins [Safran Security’s] false claims.” Id. The Court eventually
25
concluded that Relators’ TAC had failed to cure all of the deficiencies that the Court previously
26
identified in its order dismissing the SAC because Relators had not pled sufficient facts to either
27
plausibly suggest that “Safran Security submitted or caused to be submitted any false claims for
28
7
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
payment” or otherwise “connect[] [Safran Security] to the scheme.” Id. at 26. However, in light
2
of the additional facts in the TAC regarding Relators’ false identification of origin theory, the
3
Court cannot say that Relators’ attempt to bring that theory into compliance with the heightened
4
pleading standard of Rule 9(b) was “clearly frivolous,” “clearly vexatious,” or “brought primarily
5
for purposes of harassment.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4). Unlike with the other two theories of
6
falsity, Relators were able to provide some essential facts about the alleged scheme to pass off
7
Russian fingerprinting technology as French fingerprinting technology, and did not merely
8
reassert the same insufficient factual allegations from the SAC in the TAC. Thus, Relators’
9
ultimate failure to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard as to their false identification
10
of origin theory was a “bas[i]s for dismissal, [but] not for an award of fees” under the FCA. Ping
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Chen ex rel. U.S. v. EMSL Analytical, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 282, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
12
B. Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Power
13
The parties also argue over whether the Court may in theory award Safran Security
14
attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to impose sanctions. See Opp. at 10; Reply
15
at 5–6. These arguments are irrelevant because Safran Security does not move for attorneys’ fees
16
pursuant to the Court’s inherent power. In the introduction of the instant motion, Safran Security
17
states that it “requests an award of attorneys’ fees, as set forth herein, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §
18
3730(d)(4).” Mot. at 2. The introduction mentions no other grounds for recovering attorneys’
19
fees. Further, Safran Security devotes an entire section of its motion to asserting that “The Court
20
Should Award Attorneys’ Fees As Authorized By The False Claims Act.” Id. at 8–13. Safran
21
Security’s motion has no separate section that requests attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Court’s
22
inherent power. Indeed, the only mention of the Court’s inherent power in the instant motion is a
23
passing reference that “[t]he Court may also award fees and expenses pursuant to its inherent
24
power.” Id. at 8. Because the legal analysis in the instant motion focuses exclusively on the
25
standard for awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FCA, the instant order does the same.
26
27
28
However, analysis of Safran Security’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Court’s
inherent power would not change the result of this order. “[T]o impose sanctions under the
8
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
Court’s inherent power, this Court would have to make a finding of bad faith.” Boyd v. Accuray,
2
Inc., 2012 WL 4936591, *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012). For the same reasons stated above
3
regarding why Relators’ identification of origin theory of falsity was not “clearly frivolous,”
4
“clearly vexatious,” or “brought primarily for purposes of harassment” within the meaning of the
5
FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4), the Court finds that Relators did not reassert that theory of falsity in
6
bad faith. Further, although Relators may well have reasserted their two other theories of falsity in
7
bad faith, the Court has already determined that Safran Security is entitled to the attorneys’ fees it
8
incurred in defending against those two theories pursuant to the FCA because they were “clearly
9
frivolous.” Thus, the Court will not exercise its inherent power to award Safran Security any
attorneys’ fees beyond those to which Safran Security is entitled under the FCA.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
III.
CONCLUSION
12
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part Safran Security’s motion for
13
attorneys’ fees. Specifically, the Court concludes that Safran Security is entitled to the attorneys’
14
fees it incurred in defending against two of Relators’ three theories of falsity while moving to
15
dismiss the TAC: (1) that Safran Security falsely certified that it was in compliance with antitrust
16
laws and regulations; and (2) that Safran Security falsely certified that it was in compliance with
17
the Trade Act. As explained above, when Relators reasserted these theories in the TAC, the
18
eventual failure of those theories was obvious because Relators made no attempt to cure the
19
pleading deficiencies identified by the Court in its order dismissing the SAC.
20
However, none of Safran Security’s submissions provide any way to ascertain or
21
reasonably estimate the attorneys’ fees that Safran Security incurred specifically in defending
22
against these two clearly frivolous theories of falsity. Safran Security submits only a declaration
23
from one of its attorneys, Paul Salvaty (a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells US LLP),
24
indicating that (1) he, another partner, and a senior attorney performed a combined 76.3 hours of
25
work “after dismissal of the SAC and in support of Defendants’ efforts to secure dismissal of the
26
TAC”; and (2) based on their respective hourly rates of $750/hour, $750/hour, and $565/hour, and
27
the number of hours each of them worked, their total attorneys’ fees for those 76.3 hours of work
28
9
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1
2
amounted to $45,558.00. ECF No. 99-2 ¶¶ 7–10.
As a result, the Court ORDERS counsel for Safran Security to submit a declaration that
3
provides and details a reasonable estimate of the attorneys’ fees Safran Security incurred in
4
defending against the two clearly frivolous theories of falsity asserted in Relators’ TAC by
5
February 1, 2018. Thereafter, Relators shall have until February 8, 2018 to file any objections to
6
the estimate submitted by counsel for Safran Security. If a hearing is necessary, the hearing will
7
be held on February 15, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. However, the Court anticipates that the amount of
8
attorneys’ fees can be determined on the papers.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Dated: January 25, 2018
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SAFRAN SECURITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?