F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
DEC 7 2004
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
JACK J. GRYNBERG, United States
ex rel.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KOCH GATEWAY PIPELINE
COMPANY; UNITED GAS
PIPELINE COMPANY; KOCH
HYDROCARBON COMPANY;
KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC.; KOCH
EXPLORATION CO.; KOCH No. 02-8108
PIPELINE COMPANY, LP; MOBILE
BAY PIPELINE COMPANY; KOCH
OIL COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Wyoming
(D.C. No. 99-MD-1606-D)
Jean E. Dubofsky, Jean E. Dubofsky, P.C., Boulder, Colorado (Michael S. Porter,
Law Offices of Michael S. Porter, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, with her on the briefs)
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mitchell S. Ettinger, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington,
D.C. (Jennifer L. Spaziano, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Los
Angeles, California, and Michael A. Ceramella, Koch Industries, Inc., Wichita,
Kansas, with him on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees.
Sharon Swingle, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Department of Justice, Civil Division,
Washington, D.C. (Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Washington, D.C., Matthew H. Mead, United States Attorney, Washington, D.C.,
and Douglas N. Letter, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Department of Justice, Civil
Division, Washington, D.C., with her on the brief) for Amicus Curiae.
Before EBEL, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Relator Jack Grynberg brought this qui tam action under the False Claims
Act alleging that the defendants fraudulently measured its natural gas production
and thereby underpaid royalties they owed to the United States. The district court
dismissed Grynberg’s suit pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), the False Claims
Act’s so-called “first-to-file bar,” which prohibits private relators from bringing a
related action based on the facts underlying a pending qui tam case. We
AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Defendants (collectively “Koch”) are in the business of oil and natural gas
exploration, production, purchasing, processing and transportation. According to
Grynberg’s complaint, some of Koch’s natural gas production has for many years
-2-
taken place on federal or Indian property. By contract, Koch has been responsible
for measuring the natural gas it produced on federal and Indian lands, and those
measurements have been used to determine the amount of royalties payable to the
United States.
In September 1991, the Precision Company filed a qui tam action against
several Koch entities under the False Claims Act. Precision alleged that Koch
had fraudulently measured the natural gas it produced on federal and Indian lands,
and thus underpaid royalties to the United States. More specifically, Precision
alleged that the methods Koch used to defraud the government included, but were
not limited to: (1) falsely integrating natural gas measurement charts; (2)
miscalibrating gas meters; (3) installing drip valves in certain pipes and collecting
the liquid run-off condensate without paying for it; (4) understating the natural
gas’s British Thermal Unit (“BTU”) value; (5) tightening the recording pin on the
gas meter to distort measurements; (6) using an orifice place that was sized
incorrectly or installed improperly; (7) letting the ink run dry on recording pens
and manually filling in the blanks to record less gas flow; and (8) falsely
recording the proportion of non-natural gas substances contained in the natural
gas produced. Precision filed an amended complaint in August 1992 containing
the same substantive allegations.
-3-
In July 1997, while the Precision lawsuit was still pending, Grynberg
brought the instant action under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provision. Like
in the Precision case, Grynberg alleged that Koch fraudulently measured the
natural gas it produced on federal and Indian land and that it consequently
underpaid royalties to the United States.
Some of Grynberg’s specific allegations regarding how Koch mismeasured
its natural gas production closely mirror those raised by Precision in the prior
suit. For instance, Grynberg alleged that Koch improperly calibrated its
measurement equipment, recovered condensate without paying for it, understated
the BTU value of the natural gas, and used an orifice sized differently than
reported. Grynberg also alleged some fraudulent measurement techniques that
were not specifically mentioned in the Precision complaint. He claimed, for
example, that Koch used natural gas to fuel its own downstream activities without
paying for it, created unnecessary obstructions to disrupt gas flow, paid for gas
only up to an arbitrary BTU value, regardless of its true BTU value, and
misapplied a contractual provision allowing for a two percent error rate in volume
measurements by automatically subtracting two percent from its volume figures.
-4-
DISCUSSION
The False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, using a false record or
statement to avoid or decrease an obligation to make a payment to the United
States government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). This Act may be enforced either by the
Attorney General or by a private qui tam relator suing on the government’s
behalf. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(a), (b)(1). If a qui tam relator is successful, he or she
receives a certain share of the proceeds of the claim. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).
The False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions are designed to encourage
private citizens to expose fraud but to avoid actions by opportunists seeking to
capitalize on public information. United States ex rel. Precision Co. v. Koch
Indus., Inc., 971 F.2d 548, 552 (10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, private parties’
opportunities to bring qui tam suits are limited. Among the provisions of the Act
restricting qui tam litigation is 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), known colloquially as the
Act’s first-to-file bar. It states:
When a person brings an action under this subsection [a qui tam action], no
person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action
based on the facts underlying the pending action.
31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5) (emphasis added). This provision is a jurisdictional limit
on the courts’ power to hear certain duplicative qui tam suits. United States ex
rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2001).
-5-
The district court dismissed Grynberg’s action on the ground that it was
barred by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5). 1 It reasoned that the operative claim asserted
in both the Precision and Grynberg complaints was that Koch violated the False
Claims Act by misrepresenting the amount of natural gas it was taking from
federal and Indian lands and underpaying royalties to the United States. The issue
we face on appeal is whether Grynberg’s suit is a related action based on the facts
underlying the pending Precision case. As with all legal questions, our review is
de novo. See Benns v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 982 F.2d 461, 462 (10th Cir. 1993).
We judge whether § 3730(b)(5) barred Grynberg’s qui tam action by
looking at the facts as they existed at the time that action was brought – July
1997. See Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91, 93 n.1 (1957) (“[T]he jurisdiction of
the Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.”)
1
The defendants styled their motion to dismiss as arising under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Yet because the jurisdictional question in this
case is intertwined with the merits, we consider it as a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6). See Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir. 1995)
(“[A] court is required to convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a Rule
12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 summary judgment motion when resolution of the
jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case.”). We decline to
recharacterize the defendants’ motion as a summary judgment motion because we
need consider only the allegations in Grynberg’s complaint and those in the prior
Precision action. See 27A Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 62:520 (2003) (facts subject to
judicial notice may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment); Van Woudenberg v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 560, 568
(10th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he court is permitted to take judicial notice of its own files
and records, as well as facts which are a matter of public record.”), abrogated on
other grounds by McGregor v. Gibson, 248 F.3d 946, 955 (10th Cir. 2001).
-6-
(quotation omitted). At that time, Precision’s 1992 amended complaint was
pending in federal district court. If Grynberg’s suit was a “related action” based
on the facts underlying the 1992 Precision amended complaint, then it was barred
from its inception by § 3730(b)(5). See United States ex rel. LaCorte v.
SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 149 F.3d 227, 234-35 n.6 (3d Cir. 1998)
(“[W]e may decide whether the later complaints allege the same material elements
as claims in the original lawsuits simply by comparing the original and later
complaints.”). 2
Significantly, § 3730(b)(5)’s first-to-file bar is not limited to situations in
which the original and subsequent complaints rely on identical facts. An identical
facts test would be contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, which speaks of
“related” qui tam actions, not identical ones. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5); Lujan,
243 F.3d at 1189. Additionally, such a test would run counter to the purpose of
§ 3730(b)(5). Once the government is put on notice of its potential fraud claim,
2
It is not relevant that in October 1998 – after Grynberg brought the
instant action – the plaintiffs in the Precision case again amended their complaint
to raise somewhat different allegations against Koch, or that the Precision action
ultimately settled. See Lujan, 243 F.3d at 1188. Additionally, it does not matter
that the Precision plaintiffs had moved to file their second amended complaint by
the time Grynberg brought the instant case because the district court had not yet
granted that motion. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir.
1998) (“Generally speaking, an amendment that has been filed or served without
leave of court or consent of the defendants is without legal effect. It follows,
then, that only an amended complaint that is in effect . . . can supercede the
original.”) (citations omitted).
-7-
the purpose behind allowing qui tam litigation is satisfied. See LaCorte, 149 F.3d
at 234 (“[D]uplicative claims do not help reduce fraud or return funds to the
federal fisc, since once the government knows the essential facts of a fraudulent
scheme, it has enough information to discover related frauds.”). Further, original
qui tam relators would be less likely to act on the government’s behalf if they had
to share in their recovery with third parties who do no more than tack on
additional factual allegations to the same essential claim. See id.
Rather, so long as a subsequent complaint raises the same or a related claim
based in significant measure on the core fact or general conduct relied upon in the
first qui tam action, the § 3730(b)(5)’s first-to-file bar applies. Once an initial
qui tam complaint puts the government and the defendants on notice of its
essential claim, all interested parties can expect to resolve that claim in a single
lawsuit. The pendency of the initial qui tam action consequently blocks other
private relators from filing copycat suits that do no more than assert the same
material elements of fraud, regardless of whether those later complaints are able
to marshal additional factual support for the claim.
Not surprisingly, every other circuit to have addressed this issue has also
rejected an “identical facts” test in favor of an “essential claim” or “same material
elements” standard. See United States ex rel. Hampton v. Columbia/HCA
Healthcare Corp., 318 F.3d 214, 217-18 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“We ... hold that
-8-
§ 3730(b)(5) bars any action incorporating the same material elements of fraud as
an action filed earlier. In doing so we reject another possible test, one barring
claims based on ‘identical facts.’”); Lujan, 243 F.3d at 1189 (“[W]e hold that
§ 3730(b)(5) bars later-filed actions alleging the same material elements of fraud
described in an earlier suit, regardless of whether the allegations incorporate
somewhat different details.”); LaCorte, 149 F.3d at 233 (“[T]he district court
correctly interpreted the statute as barring a later-filed action alleging the same
elements of a fraud described in an earlier suit.”).
The essential claim in the 1992 Precision complaint was that Koch
employed various fraudulent techniques to mismeasure the natural gas it
produced, and used those fraudulent measurements to avoid or decrease its
obligation to pay royalties to the United States. That complaint gave notice to
both Koch and the government of its allegation that Koch had avoided its royalty
obligations by mismeasuring natural gas production, and those parties should have
expected fully to litigate that allegation in the Precision lawsuit.
Grynberg’s subsequent qui tam action raises this same essential claim.
According to Grynberg’s complaint, his lawsuit “challenges Defendant’s
mismeasurement of the volume and wrongful analysis of the heating content of
-9-
natural gas, causing substantial underpayments of royalties to the United States.” 3
He has not managed to avoid §3730(b)(5)’s first-to-file bar simply by alleging
additional facts relating to how Koch mismeasured the natural gas, even though
some of those specific allegations were not mentioned in the Precision complaint.
See LaCorte, 149 F.3d at 235-37 (original qui tam action alleging that the
defendant fraudulently overcharged the government for blood testing barred
subsequent suits that alleged new facts detailing more precisely how the
defendant overcharged the government). 4
For these reasons, the district court correctly held Grynberg’s qui tam
action barred by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
3
According to Grynberg, natural gas is measured on the basis of two
factors: volume and heating content.
4
We also reject Grynberg’s argument that § 3730(b)(5) cannot apply
because he named as defendants some affiliated Koch entities that were not listed
as defendants in the Precision suit. This variation does not change the fact that
the Precision and Grynberg complaints alleged the same essential claim of fraud.
See Hampton, 318 F.3d at 218 (section 3730(b)(5) barred a claim against a
corporation, a subsidiary, and several employees of the subsidiary, even though
the prior pending qui tam action named only the corporation itself). In his
complaint, Grynberg alleges that Koch Industries was a defendant in the prior
Precision case.
- 10 -