Lee v. Textron Marine & Land Systems, No. 2:2011cv02370 - Document 36 (E.D. La. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - the Court dismisses Lee's complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint by November 8, 2013.. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 10/11/13.(jjs, )

Download PDF
Lee v. Textron Marine & Land Systems Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STACEY LEE, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 11-2370 TEXTRON MARINE AND LAND SYSTEMS, AN OPERATING UNIT OF TEXTRON CORP, AVCO CORP., AND TEXTRON INC. SECTION: R(3) ORDER AND REASONS This lawsuit arises under the False Claims Act (FCA). Relator Stacey Lee's complaint alleges a false claim, a reverse false claim, and retaliatory discharge. Her claims are based on defendant Textron Marine and Land Systems’s alleged falsifications of inventory reports that it submitted to the United States government while Textron was manufacturing Armed Security Vehicles (“ASVs”) for the government. On October 9, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on Textron's motion to dismiss the complaint.1 At the conclusion of the argument, the Court found that Lee has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, defendant's motion is GRANTED. In the Fifth Circuit, a complaint alleging an FCA violation must set forth facts showing that “(1) . . . 'there was a false statement or fraudulent course of conduct; (2) made or carried 1 R. Doc. 22. Dockets.Justia.com out with the requisite scienter; (3) that was material; and (4) that caused the government to pay out money or to forfeit moneys due (i.e., that involved a claim).'” United States ex rel. Longhi v. United States, 575 F.3d 458, 467 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2008)). Relator's complaint fails to allege any facts suggesting that Textron's purported misrepresentations regarding inventory levels caused the United States to pay out money or forfeit moneys due. Therefore, Lee's allegation of a false claim is deficient under Longhi. Nor has Lee adequately alleged a "reverse false claim." The "reverse false claims" provision of the FCA 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." 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G). The complaint does not allege that Textron had any obligation to remit any parts or inventory to the government. It also does not allege that Textron's allegedly falsified inventory reports affected, or were even related to, its obligation to deliver finished ASVs to the government. Accordingly, Lee has failed to state a claim under the reverse false claims provision of the FCA. 2 Lee has also failed to state a claim for retaliatory discharge. "To establish [such a claim], a party must show (1) that she was engaged in protected activity with respect to the False Claims Act; (2) that her employer knew she was engaged in protected activity; and (3) that she was discharged because she was engaged in protected activity." Thomas v. ITT Educ. Servs., Inc., 517 F. App'x 259, 262 (5th Cir. 2013). The complaint is facially deficient under this test, because it does not allege any factual basis for a nexus between Lee's complaints about the inventory reports and her discharge from Textron. Indeed, Lee has failed to allege any facts showing that the individual(s) who fired her even knew she was engaged in protected activity, much less that that they fired her because she was engaged in protected activity. Lee is granted leave to amend her complaint by November 8, 2013. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Lee's complaint without prejudice. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of October, 2013. __ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.