Simoneaux et al v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company

Filing 342

RULING granting 333 Motion to Correct, Alter Or Amend Order and Judgment, For Relief from Order and Judgment, And For Reconsideration. This 331 Ruling on Remand is hereby amended to clarify that Plaintiff's retaliation claim remains pendin g before the Court. Any Dispositive Motions shall be filed on or before 11/15/2017. Oppositions shall be filed within 21 days from the filing of the motion. The mover may file a reply brief, within 14 days of the filing of the opposition and shall be limited to a total of 10 pages. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/12/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JEFFREY M. SIMONEAUX

CIVIL DOCKET

VERSUS

12-219-SDD-EWD

E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS & COMPANY

RULING
Before the Court, is Plaintiff, Jeffrey Simoneaux’s, Motion to Correct, Alter Or
Amend Order and Judgment, For Relief from Order and Judgment, And For
Reconsideration.1 The Motion is opposed2 by Defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company’s (“DuPont”) and Plaintiff has filed a Reply.3
I.

ISSUE PRESENTED
Plaintiff seeks amendment and clarification of this Court’s Judgment4 on remand

which dismissed Plaintiff’s reverse FCA claim with prejudice. Plaintiff seeks clarification
and confirmation that his retaliation claim remains viable. DuPont counters that the FCA
retaliation claim fails as a matter of law upon dismissal of the underlying reverse FCA
claim.

1

Rec. Doc. 333.
Rec. Doc. 338.
3
Rec. Doc. 341.
4
Rec. Doc. 332. 
2

41846 

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND POSTURE
Two claims were advanced by the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Simoneaux in this case; a

reverse FCA claim5 and an FCA employment retaliation claim6. The Court denied
summary judgment7 as to both claims and denied DuPont’s Motion to certify for appeal
the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment on the FCA claim.8 The matter proceeded
to trial and, after hearing evidence for two weeks, the jury returned a verdict for DuPont
and the Court entered a Judgment9 in accordance with the jury’s verdict. However,
subsequently, the Court set aside the verdict and judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) upon
finding by clear and convincing evidence that DuPont obtained the verdict through
“fraud…, misrepresentation, or other misconduct” such that the Relator was prevented
from fully and fairly presenting his case.10
Facing a lengthy and costly re-trial, DuPont moved the Court to reconsider its pretrial denial of DuPont’s Motion to certify for appeal the denial of its Motion for Summary
Judgment.11 The Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration and certified its denial of
the Motion for Summary Judgment for Appeal.12 The Court specifically stated: “the Court
hereby certifies its April 4, 2014 Ruling denying DuPont’s summary judgment motion for

5

Simoneaux asserted a “reverse false claim” under Section 3729(a)(1)(G) of the False Claims Act (“FCA”)
which imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false
record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or
knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money
or property to the Government.”
6
Simoneaux also asserted a retaliation claim under 30 U.S.C. § 3730(h), alleging that he engaged in
conduct protected by the FCA, known to duPont and for which duPont retaliated against him.
7
Rec. Doc. 47, 85. Rec. Doc. 47 is the minute entry reflecting denial of duPont’s reverse FCA claim for
reasons orally assigned on April 4, 2014. Rec. Doc. 85 is the Court’s Ruling and written reasons, denying
DuPont’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim.
8
Rec. Doc. 66.
9
Rec. Doc. 212.
10
Rec. Doc. 263.
11
Rec. Doc. 286.
12
Rec. Doc. 309. 

41846 

appeal.”13 The Court’s April 4, 2014 Ruling addressed only the Plaintiff’s reverse FCA
claim, not the FCA retaliation claim.14
On the interlocutory appeal in this matter, the Fifth Circuit ruled “It is ordered and
adjudged that the denial of summary judgment for duPont on the reverse-FCA claim is
reversed and remanded. With respect to the retaliation claim, the appeal is dismissed for
lack of appellate jurisdiction.”15 On June 15, 2017, this Court entered its Ruling on
Remand which ordered: “For the reasons articulated by the Court of Appeal, the Court
hereby GRANTS Dupont’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff’s reverse FCA
claim is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”16
The procedural history makes it clear that only the issue of the Plaintiff’s reverse
FCA claim was certified for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed and
remanded this Court’s denial of DuPont’s motion for summary judgment on the reverseFCA claim, and for the reasons articulated by the Court of Appeal this Court dismissed
the Plaintiff’s reverse FCA claim with prejudice. The jury’s verdict having been vacated,
the Plaintiff’s FCA retaliation claim remains before this Court. The Court declines
DuPont’s invitation to sua sponte enter summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s FCA
retaliation claim.

13

Rec. Doc. 309, specific reference was made to Rec. Doc. 47 which is the minute entry reflecting denial
of duPont’s reverse FCA claim for reasons orally assigned on April 4, 2014. The Plaintiff’s FCA retaliation
claim was not addressed by the Court in its April 4, 2014 oral reasons for ruling. In a subsequent Ruling of
cross motions for summary judgment the Court “acknowledges that it never [previously] reached the merits
of whether Simoneaux could produce evidence showing that he informed his employer about his concern
that they were defrauding the government by not reporting the gas leaks to the EPA.” Rec. Doc. 85.
14
Id.
15
Rec. Doc. 328.
16
Rec. Doc. 331. 

41846 

III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Correct, Alter Or Amend Order and

Judgment, For Relief from Order and Judgment, And For Reconsideration17 is
GRANTED. This Court’s Ruling on Remand18 is hereby amended to clarify that Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim remains pending before the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to the remaining claim, any Dispositive
Motions shall be filed on or before November 15, 2017. Opposition to any motion shall
be filed within 21 days from the filing of the motion. The mover may file a reply brief,
without the necessity of seeking leave, within 14 days of the filing of the opposition and
such shall be limited to a total of 10 pages.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on October 12, 2017. 

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

17
18

Rec. Doc. 333.
Rec. Doc. 331. 

41846