United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Company, No. 12-1011 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 18, 2013.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1011 UNITED STATES EX REL. BENJAMIN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON CO; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL,INC.; KBR, INC., Defendants - Appellees. On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States (S. Ct. No. 12-1497) Decided on Remand: August 7, 2015 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and reversed unpublished per curiam order. and remanded in part by ARGUED: William Clifton Holmes, DUNLAP, GRUBB & WEAVER, PC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John Martin Faust, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. FAUST, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas M. Dunlap, David Ludwig, DUNLAP, GRUBB & WEAVER, PC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig D. Margolis, Tirzah S. Lollar, Kathryn B. Codd, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ORDER PER CURIAM: This case returns to us on remand after the Supreme Court granted Kellogg certiorari, and Brown & reversed Root in Services, part and Inc.’s affirmed petition for in our part decision in United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2013). The only issue left for resolution is whether Carter timely filed his complaint under the principle of equitable tolling. summary affirmance Appellees–Defendants have filed a motion for under Fourth Circuit Local Rule 27(f). Because Carter raised the issue of equitable tolling for the first time in a motion to file a surreply and has not appealed the district court’s denial of that motion, we find that the issue is not properly before us and that equitable tolling is thus unavailable. (4th Cir. 2011). See ACLU v. Holder, 673 F.3d 245, 252 n.5 Therefore, we grant Appellees–Defendants’ motion for summary affirmance and affirm the district court’s judgment in regard to that issue. Of course, the district court judgment was not wholly free from error, as “dismissal with prejudice of respondent’s one live claim” was “not called for” under the first-to-file rule. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. 2 v. United States ex rel. Carter, 135 S. Ct. 1970, 1978-79 (2015); Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d at 183. Thus, this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART 3