Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Kellog Brown & Root Services, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division

November 24, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
KELLOG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER

JONATHAN E. HAWLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Now before the Court are the United States' Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 71) and the United States' Motion to Strike Defendant OAS' Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 79). The Motions are fully briefed, and for the reasons set forth below, the United States' Motions to Strike are DENIED.

I

On December 21, 2012, the United States filed a 33-page First Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) alleging violations of the False Claims Act, the Contract Disputes Act, and Breach of Contract. On May 2, 2014, Defendants Kellog Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBRSI) and Kellog Brown & Root LLC (KBR) filed their Answer to First Amended Complaint of the United States of America (Doc. 70) which included 11 Affirmative Defenses. On October 14, 2014, Defendant Overseas Administrative Services, Ltd. (OAS) filed its Answer to First Amended Complaint of the United States of America (Doc. 77) which also included 11 Affirmative Defenses. After the Defendants filed their Answers, the United States filed Motions to Strike Affirmative Defenses 1-2 and 4-10.[1]

The Defendants set forth their Affirmative Defenses 1-2 and 4-10 as follows:

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Defendants are not legally responsible for acts or omissions allegedly undertaken by employees, subcontractors, and others to the extent that those acts or omissions prove to have been undertaken outside the scope of employment or authority, as criminal acts, in secret, and/or without the knowledge of persons having legally sufficient levels of responsibility or authority within the relevant Defendant companies.
4. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations.
5. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part by laches.
6. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part by estoppel.
7. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part by waiver.
8. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part by assumption of risk.
9. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because the government has unclean hands.
10. The claims in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because the government has failed to mitigate its damages, if any. (Doc. 70 at pgs. 26-27); (Doc. 77 at pgs. 33-34). The United States now seeks to strike Affirmative Defenses 1-2 and 4-10 on various grounds. It is unnecessary for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.