Attorney Fees
Tread Carefully: District of Utah Grants Motion For Attorneys’ Fees After Unsupported FCA Claim
On February 3, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted a motion for attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff Kelly Sorenson (“Sorenson”), finding that the claims Sorenson asserted against his former employer under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) were “clearly frivolous” and compensable under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4). United States ex rel. Sorenson v. Wadsworth Bros. Constr. Co., No. 2:16-cv-875, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21561 (D. Utah Feb. 3, 2021). In its decision, the Court emphasized that Sorenson’s claims were “conclusory, unsupported, and/or baseless,” entitling Defendant Wadsworth Brothers Construction Company, Inc. (“Wadsworth”) to “reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses” incurred over the course of the four-year litigation, including both motion to dismiss and summary judgment briefing. Id. at *3-5. Although courts have long been reticent to deem FCA claims frivolous, this decision may indicate a shift in judicial decision-making with respect to the FCA. In August 2016, Sorenson filed a qui tam complaint alleging that Wadsworth violated the FCA by failing to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act—which requires employers to pay certain wages to laborers on government contracts—when paying his wages on a federally-funded project for the Salt Lake International Airport. Sorenson further alleged that Wadsworth violated the FCA’s retaliation provisions by cutting his hours and terminating him when he raised wage-related concerns to his supervisors. The government declined to intervene. Wadsworth moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that Sorenson had already litigated his wage claims in state court and that the FCA claims lacked the factual allegations necessary to satisfy the Rule 12(b)(6) and heightened Rule 9 pleading standards for fraud claims. The Court largely granted Wadsworth’s motion, dismissing the fraud, false record, false receipt, and conspiracy to defraud claims brought under the FCA. Emphasizing the need for “knowingly” presenting a false or fraudulent claim for approval under the FCA, the Court concluded that a certification of compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act alone was not a material misrepresentation. In so doing, the Court recognized that the FCA is not an “all-purpose antifraud statute” or a statute to be used to punish garden-variety contract or regulatory violations. Similarly, the Court dismissed Sorenson’s claim for conspiracy to defraud because Sorenson did not establish that Wadsworth had made fraudulent misrepresentations under the FCA, and therefore could not establish that Wadsworth had acted with other actors to defraud the government. Sorenson continued to pursue the sole surviving claim—retaliation—and Wadsworth filed a motion for summary judgment in May 28, 2020. The Court granted Wadsworth’s motion, concluding that Sorenson never put Wadsworth on notice of his protected activity and was laid off for normal business reasons. Wadsworth did not stop there, however. Instead, Wadsworth also filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in December 2020 as allowed under Section 3730(d)(4) of the FCA, which provides: If the Government does not proceed with the action and the person bringing the action conducts the action, the court may award to the defendant its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses if the defendant prevails in the action and 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) (emphasis added); see also Docket No. 45 at 4. Although this bar is high, the Court concluded that Sorenson’s suit was “clearly frivolous” because of Sorenson’s failure to fulfill basic elements of an FCA claim, including alleging more than conclusory statements, presenting evidence that Sorenson communicated to Wadsworth that he was accusing them of violating the FCA, and showing some form of retaliation. On those grounds, the Court granted Wadsworth’s motion and ordered that Sorenson pay “reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses” under Section 3730(d)(4). This decision illustrates that if the claim does not fit within the specific parameters established under the FCA, a court will not hesitate to dismiss the action as insufficient and unsupported. And if the relator has clearly failed to fulfill basic requirements for an allegation of fraud under the FCA, the relator runs the risk of paying defense fees if the Court finds the claims to be either frivolous or harassing. As made clear in Sorenson, the consequences can be expensive.
February 15, 2021
Attorney Fees
Government Contractor Awarded Attorney Fees for Defending Against "Unreasonable" FCA Claim
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently concluded that a contractor should obtain an award of attorney fees for having to defend against an “unreasonable” False Claims Act (“FCA”) suit. In United States ex. rel. Wall v. Circle C. Constr. LLC, the Government sued a contractor that built warehouses for the U.S. Army. During construction, it was alleged that the contractor’s subcontractor paid two electricians $9,900 less than the wages mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act, a federal law that sets wages on public-works projects. That underpayment rendered false the “compliance statements” that the contractor periodically sent to the Government, and the Government subsequently that the contractor had made a false claim against the United States. In its lawsuit, the Government sought $1.66 million in damages. The Government claimed that the contractor’s allegedly false claim of $9,900 had caused $554,000 in “actual damages,” which it was entitled to treble under the FCA. The Government argued that the $9,900 underpayment had “tainted” all of the subcontractor’s electrical work and rendered the total value ($554,000) of the performance worthless. During a previous appeal, the Sixth Circuit rejected that argument. It held that the underpayment did not “taint” the total value of the electrical work and reversed a $763,000 judgment for the Government. It remanded for an award of $14,748—less than one percent of the Government’s demand. On remand, the contractor sought $468,704 in attorneys’ fees it had spent defending against the Government’s $1.66 million claim. The contractor’s demand for attorneys’ fees arose out of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(D), which states that a court must “award to the [defendant] the fees and other expenses related to defending against the excessive demand” if the Government’s original demand was both (1) “substantially in excess of the judgment finally obtained” and (2) “unreasonable when compared with such a judgment.” The district court denied the contractor’s motion for fees, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, explaining that it would be an “understate[ment]” to say the government’s demand of $1.66 million was “substantially in excess” of the $14,748 judgment. It also found that the demand was “unreasonable compared to the judgment.” In the FCA context, actual damages are “the difference in value between what the government bargained for and what the government received.” Here, the government bargained for buildings and wages; it got the buildings but “not quite all” of the wages. The shortfall—$9,900—was the government’s actual damages. The court found that no reasonable person could accept that the underpayment tainted the entire value of the electrical work because the Government benefitted “every minute of every day” in the form of functioning electrical systems. The Government argued that the contractor was not entitled to fees because its underpayment amounted to “bad faith,” one of the exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(D). The court disagreed and found that the Government failed to show that the underpayment was anything other than “an honest mistake.” The court noted that, unlike many FCA cases, this case did not involve an systematic attempt to defraud the government. Rather, it involved a $9,900 inaccuracy in a $20 million project. The court also noted that the subcontractor’s prices did not clearly state how much it paid the electricians and that both of the contractor’s co-owners testified that they submitted “compliance statements” with the honest belief that they were true. Although the district court found that the contractor was “reckless” in not knowing whether its “compliance statements” were accurate, that standard was less stringent that bad faith. The Government also argued that an attorneys’ fee award would “chill[]” its ability to enforce the FCA. In response, the court observed: “One should hope so. In this case the government made a demand for damages a hundredfold greater than what it was entitled to, and then pressed that demand over nearly a decade of litigation, all based on a theory that as applied here was nearly frivolous.” The court then reversed and remanded for an award of attorneys’ fees to the contractor.
September 6, 2017
by Alan J. Iverson
