United States of America,ex rel Bud Conyers v Halliburton Company et al
Filing
474
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 462 Corrected MOTION to Set Relator's Share. IT IS ORDERED that the United States of America pay to the relator, the Estate of Bud Conyers, the sum of $1,139,801.75, plus reasonable attorneys fees, within 60 days of this memorandumfailing that, the Court will enter a Final Judgment in that same amount along with interest and attorneys fees. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(JacquelineMata, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
VS.
§
§
KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT INC, et §
al.,
§
§
Defendants.
February 09, 2023
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:06-CV-04024
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is the relator’s, Estate of Bud Conyers (“Mr. Conyers”)
corrected motion (DE 462) to set his share of a settlement between himself, the
government, and Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (“KBR”). The government has filed a
response (DE 464), Mr. Conyers has filed a reply (DE 466), and both parties appeared
before the Court for a hearing on this motion (DE 471). After reviewing the motion,
the response, the reply, the record, the applicable law, and the hearing transcript,
the Court determines that the relator’s motion should be GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
II.
BACKGROUND
The relator, Bud Conyers, filed his qui tam action against KBR in 2006. In
2014, the government intervened under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3731. The
parties settled in 2022, with KBR agreeing to pay the United States $13,677,621. As
1/5
for Mr. Conyers, the settlement agreement released KBR “from any liability to the
Relator arising from the filing of the Civil Action,” and Mr. Conyers voluntarily
dismissed his qui tam action with prejudice (DE 449). Nonetheless, Mr. Conyers
retained his rights under the False Claims Act to a share of the settlement proceeds.
This Court retained jurisdiction to resolve disputes over his share.
III.
ANALYSIS
A. The False Claims Act and Factual Overlap
This dispute centers on the interpretation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1), a
subsection of the False Claims Act. The relevant portion states: “If the Government
proceeds with an action brought by a person under subsection (b), such person shall
. . . receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the
action or settlement of the claim.” Id. (emphasis added). The question, therefore, is
whether Mr. Conyers may recover a portion of the settlement where the covered
conduct does not explicitly include the conduct that Mr. Conyers alleged.
The Court’s analysis is guided by Rille v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 803
F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 2015). In that case, the government objected to a relator’s recovery
because the relator did not plead the conduct that formed the basis of the claims that
the government settled. The court reasoned that “a relator seeking recovery must
establish that there exists [an] overlap between Relator’s allegations and the conduct
discussed in the settlement agreement.” Id. at 373 (quoting United States ex rel.
Bledsoe v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 342 F.3d 634, 651 (6th Cir.2003)). The
court clarified that the overlap must be “factual.” Rille, 803 F.3d 368 at 374. As the
2/5
Eighth Circuit explained, it would be “inconsistent with the purposes of the [False
Claims] Act to permit a relator automatically to receive a share of the proceeds when
the relator might have had nothing to do with the government’s recovery on a
particular claim.” Id. at 373.
B. Mr. Conyers’ Allegations and the Settlement’s Covered Conduct
The next question is whether the settlement’s covered conduct overlaps with
Mr. Conyers’ three qui tam allegations. The first alleges that KBR used mortuary
trailers to deliver consumable supplies to United States soldiers. The second alleges
that KBR managers billed prostitutes to the United States. The third alleges that two
KBR employees accepted kickbacks from truck suppliers; specifically, that Willie
Dawson accepted kickbacks for trucks, trailers, and equipment in exchange for
accepting defective vehicles, and that Rob Nuble accepted kickbacks in exchange for
charging the United States for more trucks than the supplier delivered.
The settlement’s covered conduct includes three employees’ conduct—Stephen
Seamans, Jeff Mazon, and Anthony Martin. Mr. Seamans inflated bids for a cleaning
contract in exchange for kickbacks, and Mr. Mazon did the same with a fuel contract.
Mr. Martin received kickbacks that inflated the price of truck and trailer contracts
that were formed after Mr. Conyers began working for KBR.
The Court finds there is sufficient factual overlap between Mr. Conyers’
allegations of kickbacks for trucks and trailers and the government’s allegations of
kickbacks for trucks and trailers. The details concerning the guilty parties or the
specific vehicles and their use are inconsequential because equity aids the statute in
3/5
ensuring that a relator does not lose the favor of the statute based on the
government’s determination of how and on what basis it will proceed, either to trial
or in settling the case. The facts establish that in December of 2003, Mr. Conyers
reported the fraud he alleged to both the United States Army and KBR’s Office of
Internal Affairs. Alerting the government to fraud in the form of kickbacks for truck
contracts put the government on notice of the practice and arguably impelled and/or
focused its investigation into Mr. Martin’s conduct. On the other hand, the Court does
not find sufficient factual overlap between the covered conduct and Mr. Conyers’ two
other claims.
The next question is apportionment. The settlement agreement does not
indicate the weight of each claim. Accordingly, the Court weighs each of the settled
claims equally, entitling Mr. Conyers to a percentage of one third of the total
settlement amount of $13,677,621—$4,559,207. The Court determines that the
appropriate percentage is 25%. The Act instructs that a relator shall receive “at least
15 but not more than 25 percent . . . depending upon the extent to which the [relator]
substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1). Mr.
Conyers supported the government’s investigation through multiple meetings and
phone calls, and the government has not produced documents establishing that it was
aware of the fraud before Mr. Conyers’ report. Additionally, the government has not
argued for an alternative percentage, other than 0%. For these reasons, the Court
concludes that Mr. Conyers is entitled to 25% of one third of the total settlement
amount—$1,139,801.75.
4/5
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the United States of America pay to the
relator, the Estate of Bud Conyers, the sum of $1,139,801.75, plus reasonable
attorney’s fees, within 60 days of this memorandum—failing that, the Court will
enter a Final Judgment in that same amount along with interest and attorney’s
fees.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on February 9, 2023, at Houston, Texas.
_________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
5/5
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?