United States Ex Rel. Werner v. Fuentez Systems Concepts, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. KURT V.
WERNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FUENTEZ SYSTEMS CONCEPTS, INCORPORATED; UNISYS
CORPORATION; BAE SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; PRC
CORPORATION; AFFILIATED COMPUTER SYSTEMS,
INCORPORATED; STG, INCORPORATED; ATS
INCORPORATED; SIGNAL CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SYSTEMS RESOURCES CORPORATION; INET
CORPORATION; GTE CORPORATION; SOZA
CORPORATION; ADVANCED MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES,
INCORPORATED; BATTELLE MEMORIAL LABORATORIES,
INCORPORATED; PIONEER SERVICES; DOE-ENTITY #1;
JOHN DOE-ENTITY #2,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-00-95-3)

Argued: October 27, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Candace Smith McCall, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles F. Printz, Jr., BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE,
P.L.L.C., Martinsburg, West Virginia; Richard J. Webber, ARENT FOX,
P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Brian Michael
Peterson, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, P.L.L.C.,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee Fuentez Systems Concepts,
Inc. Bonnie Lynne Kane, ARENT FOX, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for
Appellee UNISYS Corporation. Marc Fred Efron, J. Catherine Kunz,
CROWELL & MORING, Washington, D.C., for Appellee BAE Systems, Inc.
William W. Thompson, Jr., THOMPSON & WALDRON, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellees PRC Corporation and Affiliated Computer Systems.
Richard J. Conway, DICKSTEIN, SHAPIRO, MORIN & OSHINSKY, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee SIGNAL Corporation. Edward Hyun
Dong Kim, Kenneth John Ingram, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee STG, Incorporated. Daniel Bernard
Abrahams, Constance Angela Wilkinson, EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee ATS, Incorporated.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

2
PER CURIAM:

Kurt Werner appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Appellees in his action under the False Claims

Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (2000). Werner’s complaint alleged

that the Appellees, who were contractors providing computer

services at the Coast Guard’s Operations Systems Center in

Martinsburg, West Virginia (“OSC”), engaged in a practice of

including time lost due to base closures or spent at training

seminars and social events as time worked by employees on their

invoices. In response, the Appellees asserted that officials at

OSC responsible for overseeing their contracts knew of and approved

of these practices. Following discovery, the district court

granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.

We review the district court’s grant of a motion for summary

judgment de novo. Castillo v. Emergency Med. Assocs., P.A., 372

F.3d 643, 646 (4th Cir. 2004). In granting summary judgment, the

district court found that the facts adduced by the parties

demonstrated that the Appellees were entitled to the “government

knowledge” defense. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Becker v.

Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2002).

In Becker, we held that where

the government knows and approves of the particulars of
a claim for payment before that claim is presented, the
presenter cannot be said to have knowingly presented a
fraudulent or false claim. In such a case, the
government’s knowledge effectively negates the fraud or
falsity required by the FCA.

3
Becker, 305 F.3d at 289 (internal quotations omitted).

Despite ample evidence that the Appellees discussed the

billing practices in question with the OSC officials responsible

for managing their contracts, Werner asserts that the district

court erred on several grounds. Werner reiterates his argument

that Appellees impermissibly sought recovery under their contracts

for hours not actually worked, that Appellees failed to disclose to

the contracting officers information necessary to give rise to the

“government knowledge” defense, and that the OSC officials lacked

the authority necessary to authorize the billing practices that

Werner claims are fraudulent.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the voluminous joint

appendix, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find that

the district court correctly addressed and resolved all of the

issues raised. We therefore affirm on the basis of its well

reasoned opinion.

AFFIRMED

4