Metzgar v. KBR, Inc. (In re KBR, Inc.)
| Citation | 744 F.3d 326 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–1430.,13–1430. |
| Parties | In re KBR, INCORPORATED, BURN PIT LITIGATION. Alan Metzgar; Paul Parker; Richard Ronald Guilmette; William G. Brister, Jr.; Henry J. O'Neill; Michael Auw; Cory Casalegno; Michael Douglas Moore; David U. Lackey; Randall L. Robinson; Dean Guy Olson; Albert Paul Bittel, III; Fred Robert Atkinson, Jr.; Robyn Sachs, Personal Representative of Christopher Sachs, Deceased; Jennifer Montijo; Stephen Flowers; Joanne Ochs; Melissa Ochs; James Morgan; David Newton; Chris Boggiano; Earl Chavis; Benny Lyle Reynolds; Joshua Eller; Robert Cain; Craig Henry; Francis Jaeger; David Mcmenomy; Mark Posz; El Kevin Sar; Smsgt. Glen S. Massman; Ssgt. Wendy L. McBreairty; Pablo Berchini; Brian P. Robinson; Maurice Callue; Dennis Wayne Briggs; Edward Lee Buquo; Wayne E. Fabozzi; Sharlene S. Jaggernauth; Floyd James Johnson, Sr.; Tamra C. Johnson; Richard Lee Keith; Daniel Santiago Morales; Phillip McQuillan; Ildebbrando Perez; Luigi Antonio Provenza; Ruth Ann Reece; Eduardo Saavedra, Sr.; Jill R. Wilkins, Personal Representative of Kevin E. Wilkins, Deceased; Michael Donnell Williams; Jermaine Lynell Wright; Edward Adams; Kenneth Baldwin; Donna Wu; John Does 1–1000; Jane Does 1–1000; Wallace McNabb; Kevin Paul Robbins; Brian Blumline; Robert Bidinger; Unknown Parties; Benjamin Boeke; Craig Kervin; Barry Zabielinski; David Green; Nick Daniel Heisler; Derrol A. Turner; Vincent C. Moseley; Alex Harley; John A. Wester, Jr.; Bill Jack Carlisle, Jr.; Anthony Edward Roles; Marcos Barranco; Joel Lugo; Shawn Thomas Sheridan; Jayson Williams; Eunice Ramirez; Lee Warren Jellison, Jr.; George Lundy; Thomas Kelleck; Dan Bowlds; Tony Allen Gouckenour; John William Jackson; John Pete Troost; Deborah Ann Wheelock; Charles Hicks; Sean Alexander Stough; Jeffrey Morgan Cox; James Warren Garland; Danny Lapierre; Kenneth Harris; Anthony Jerome Williams; Kathy Vines; Patrick Cassidy; William Barry Dutton; Christopher Michael Kozel; Richard Mcandrew; Lorenzo Perez; Jessey Joseph Philip Baca; Daniel Tijernia; Heinz Alex Disch; James McCollem; Travis Fidell Pugh; Anthony Ray Johnson; David Michael Rohmfeld; Joshua David Beavers; Matthew Joel Fields; Steven E. Gardner; Stephen R. Jones; Kevin Scott Tewes; Hans Nicolas Yu; Thomas Olson; Brian Paulus; Paul Michael Wiatr; Michael Foth; Brett Anthony Mazzara; Lisa Rounds, Personal Representative of Andrew Ray Rounds, Deceased; David Rounds, Personal Representative of Andrew Ray Rounds, Deceased; Peter Blumer; Scott Andrew Chamberlain; Timothy E. Dimon; William Philip Krawczyk, Sr.; Sean Johnson; Sherry Bishop, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Kirk A. Bishop; Gene Bishop; Patrick Bishop; Albert Johnson, Jr.; David Jobes; Gene Leonard Matson; Timothy J. Watson; Andrew Mason; Michelle Brown; Jonathan Lynn; Charles Kinney; Michael Mcclain; Basil Salem; Justin Gonzales; Matthew Guthery; Christopher Lippard; David Parr; John F. Monahan; Amanda Brannon; L. Chandler Brannon, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. KBR, Incorporated; Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC; Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Incorporated; Brown and Root Services; Dii Industries, LLC; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; KBR Holdings, LLC; Kellogg Brown & Root, Incorporated; Kellogg Brown & Root International, Incorporated; KBR Group Holdings Incorporated; KBR Technical Services, Incorporated, Defendants–Appellees, and Erka Ltd, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED:Susan L. Burke, BURKE PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Robert A. Matthews, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Joseph Rice, Frederick C. Baker, James W. Ledlie, Motley & Rice, LLP, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellants. Raymond B. Biagini, Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Shannon G. Konn, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge DIAZ and Judge ANDERSON have joined.
Since the United States began its military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, respectively, its use of private contractors to support its mission has risen to “unprecedented levels.” Comm'n on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, At What Risk? Correcting Over–Reliance on Contractors in Contingency Operations 1 (Feb. 24, 2011) (laying out the findings of a bipartisan congressional commission). At times, the number of contract employees has exceeded the number of military personnel alongside whom they work in these warzones. Id. Courts—including this Court—have struggled with how to treat these contractors under the current legal framework, which protects government actors but not private contractors from lawsuits in some cases. See, e.g., Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988); Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 724 F.3d 458 (3d Cir.2013); Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402 (4th Cir.2011); Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.2009); Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.2009). This case requires us to make another contribution to this changing legal landscape.
Appellees are companies that contracted with the United States government to provide certain services at military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, including waste disposal and water treatment. Appellants contend that they suffered harm as a result of the contractors' waste disposal and water treatment practices and brought state tort and contract claims to seek redress for their alleged injuries. Prior to discovery, the district court dismissed Appellants' claims, holding that (1) the claims were nonjusticiable, (2) the contractors were immune from suit, and (3) federal law preempted the state tort laws underlying Appellants' claims. Because the district court lacked the information necessary to dismiss Appellants' claims on these bases, we vacate the district court's decision and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Army contracted with Appellees KBR, Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root LLC; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; and Halliburton (collectively, KBR) to provide waste disposal and water treatment services on military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fifty-eight separate complaints, Appellants—the majority of whom are United States military personnel—(Servicemembers) brought various state tort and contract claims, including the following causes of action: negligence; battery; nuisance; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; willful and wanton conduct; negligent hiring, training, and supervision; breach of duty to warn; breach of contract; and wrongful death. Many of the pending cases are purported class actions. The Servicemembers contend that they suffered injuries as a result of KBR's waste disposal and water treatment practices. According to the Servicemembers, these injuries occurred because KBR “violated military directives in its performance of waste disposal and water treatment services” and breached LOGCAP III—its contract with the government.
“LOGCAP” stands for “Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.” Under that program, which the Army established in 1985, “civilian contractors [may] perform selected services in wartime to augment Army forces” and “release military units for other missions or fill shortfalls.” Army Reg. 700–137, at 1–1 (Dec. 16, 1985). On December 14, 2001, the Army awarded the LOGCAP III contract to KBR. LOGCAP III is a ten-year contract that governs a wide array of services on military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Djibouti, Jordan, Kenya, Uzbekistan, and Georgia, including waste disposal, water treatment, and other vital services. The military executes LOGCAP III through various “task orders” that incorporate “statements of work,” which define KBR's responsibilities.
In their First Amended Complaint, the Servicemembers contend that KBR violated LOGCAP III's waste management and water treatment components in two major ways. First, the Servicemembers allege that KBR failed to properly handle and incinerate waste by “burn[ing] vast quantities of unsorted waste in enormous open air burn pits with no safety controls” from 2003 to the present. They aver that the burned waste included trucks, tires, rubber, batteries, Styrofoam, metals, petroleum, chemicals, medical waste, biohazard materials, human remains, asbestos, and hundreds of thousands of plastic water bottles. A report that the Department of Defense presented to Congress identifies many of these items as “prohibited from burning.” Dep't of Defense, Report to Congress on the Use of Open–Air Burn Pits by the United States Armed Forces 6 (Apr. 28, 2010). According to the Servicemembers, the smoke from these burn pits contained “carcinogens and respiratory sensitizers ..., creating a severe health hazard [and] potentially causing both acute and chronic health problems.” Second, the Servicemembers contend that KBR provided contaminated water to military forces. Specifically, they argue that KBR did not perform water quality tests or ensure that water contained proper levels of chlorine residual.
On October 16, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the cases to the District of Maryland for consolidated pretrial proceedings. KBR filed its first motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on January 29, 2010. KBR argued that (1) the Servicemembers' claims are nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine; (2) KBR is entitled to “derivative sovereign immunity” based on the “discretionary function”...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamm v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
... ... the proceeding to one for summary judgment." In re KBR , Inc ., Burn Pit Litig ., 744 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir ... ...
-
Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc.
... ... " See In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig. , 744 F.3d 326, 345 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting ... ...
-
Dowling v. A.R.T. Inst. of Wash., Inc.
... ... to this case, "[t]he FTCA explicitly excludes independent contractors from its scope." In re KBR, Inc. , 736 F.Supp.2d 954, 96364 (D. Md. 2010), modified on reh'g sub nom. In re KBR, Inc., ... ...
-
Ameur v. Gates
... ... conclusion that flows therefrom de novo.” In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir.2014) ... ...
-
Former Abu Ghraib Detainees Appeal Political Question Dismissal Of Suit Against War-Zone Contractor
...squarely raised the political question issue in the context of "battlefield contractor" litigation. See In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2014); cert. denied sub nom. Metzgar v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1153 (2015); Harris v. Kellogg Brown &am......
-
The Sovereign Shield.
...to a contract lawyer retained by the city to assist in an official government investigation). (74.) See In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 341-42, 345 (4th Cir. 2014) (rejecting the defendant's assertion that it was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity based on the "discre......
-
TORT LAW - SECOND CIRCUIT DENIES EXTENDING COMBATANT ACTIVITIES EXCEPTION TO MILITARY CONTRACTOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS - BADILLA V. MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERV., 8 F.4TH 105 (2D CIR. 2021).
...not fit into this expanded interpretation of the combatant activities exception. Id. at 482. See also In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 351 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding military contractor not shielded from liability under combatant activities exception). In this case, U.S. milita......