IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30328

United States of America, ex rel, TERRY D. MCLAIN; J. LEN HODGES, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants 

v. 

FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, 

INCORPORATED; CH2M HILL CONSTRUCTORS, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendants - Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:06-CV-11229

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Relators Terry D. McLain and J. Len Hodges filed the instant qui tam 

action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, alleging that 

defendants Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (“Fluor”), CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc. 

(“CH2M”), and Shaw Environmental, Inc. (“Shaw”) submitted to the 

government false claims for payments for temporary housing units (“THUs”). 

Their false claim allegation is based on defendants’ failure to comply with 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

2 

Louisiana liquefied petroleum (“LP”) statutes when installing tens of 

thousands of THUs through their subcontractors in the aftermath of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fluor, Shaw, 

and CH2M (collectively, “the Contractors”) and dismissed the relators’ 

complaint. The relators timely appeal. Their primary argument is that the 

installation contracts at issue were “null” under Louisiana law, and any claims 

for payment based on those null contracts were therefore “false” claims in 

violation of the FCA. We AFFIRM. 

I. 

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina—one of the most destructive natural 

disasters in our nation’s history—hundreds of thousands of individuals were 

left without their homes. Less than a month later, Hurricane Rita wreaked 

additional havoc on an already storm-ravaged coast. On the day Katrina made 

landfall, August 29, 2005, FEMA issued Solicitation No. HSFEHQ-05-R-0046, 

which requested proposals to provide disaster relief services under FEMA’s 

Individual Assistance program. Between September 2005 and November 

2006, FEMA facilitated the installation of over 100,000 THUs in areas along 

the Gulf Coast that were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. After their 

proposals were accepted, defendants Fluor, CH2M, and Shaw entered into 

contracts with FEMA to “haul and install” THUs for Louisiana residents who 

were displaced by the devastation from the hurricanes. Inside the trailers, 

appliances and plumbing—from the stoves, to the refrigerators, to the running 

water—were fueled by LP gas. The contracts between FEMA and the 

Contractors were “cost-reimbursement contracts on a cost-plus-fixed-fee 

basis.” Under these contracts, CH2M, Shaw, and Fluor were entitled to receive 

payment for works in progress and other costs associated with fulfilling the 

obligations of the contracts they had with the Government. 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

3 

FEMA directed each of the Contractors to work to get as many “heads in 

beds” as quickly as possible. Fluor, CH2M, and Shaw worked through 

subcontractors to install these housing units. The subcontracts with the 

installers contained language requiring the subcontractor installers to perform 

work “in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and 

regulations.” In pertinent part, the subcontracts contained some variation of 

the following language: 

All work performed shall be in accordance with all applicable 

federal, state and local codes and regulations. The provisions 

herein and typical details shall not be construed as lowering 

standards established by local laws, ordinances or regulations. 

 

The contractor [the installers] must be, or have employed, 

registered licensed technicians . . . to conform to State and local 

requirements for installing and/or hooking up systems or repairing 

defects involving their particular trade. It is the contractor’s 

responsibility to obtain all proper licenses and permits to set-up 

the units. Locally required permits shall be applied for within 3 

working days of work order issuance. Units shall be ready to 

occupy within 3 days of permit issuance. 

The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining necessary 

permits associated with placing and installing the unit and utility 

installation. Permits shall be applied for within 3 working days of 

work order issuance. Unit shall be ready to occupy within 3 days 

of permit issuance. . . . 

In January 2006, the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Commission (“LPGC”) 

communicated to CH2M, Shaw, and Fluor that their THU installations were 

not in compliance with Louisiana LP regulations due to the subcontractors’ 

lack of Class II LP gas installation permits.1 Nevertheless, FEMA instructed 

 

1 At the time, both the Contractors and FEMA were unsure as to whether the LP gas 

regulations applied to them; before Hurricane Katrina, the LPGC apparently did not enforce 

LP gas regulations including permit requirements and pressure/leak check testing with 

respect to the installation of FEMA-owned THUs. 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

4 

the Contractors to continue the installations in accordance with the regulatory 

requirements and then retrofit THUs that had already been installed to render 

them compliant with the regulations. Fluor, Shaw, and CH2M also began 

applying for the proper permits once the LPGC asserted that they were 

violating the Louisiana LP gas regulations.2 Although each defendant received 

citations related to these violations, CH2M, Shaw, and Fluor worked with the 

LPGC to reach Settlement Agreements that, inter alia, dismissed the citations, 

acknowledged that a dispute existed as to whether “certain rules and 

regulations promulgated by the LPGC” applied to the Contractors, and in the 

case of CH2M, noted that CH2M had “in good faith achieved compliance with 

the LPGC’s rules and regulations.” 

Relators McLain and Hodges, both LPGC inspectors, filed the instant 

qui tam action under seal in the Eastern District of Louisiana on December 21, 

2006. The government investigated the allegations pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3730(b) and declined to intervene in December 2012. The case was later 

unsealed and the First Amended Complaint was served upon the defendants 

in early 2013.

Over the course of almost two years, a number of Counts from the First 

Amended Complaint were dismissed. In an Order dated August 8, 2013, the 

district court dismissed Counts 3, 5, 6, and 9. In November 2014, the district 

court issued an Order addressing Motions to Dismiss by Fluor and CH2M, 

Motions for Summary Judgment by Fluor and Shaw, and a Motion to Strike 

and Amend the Complaint by the relators. The motions for summary judgment 

were granted in part and denied in part, while the remaining motions were 

denied. The court granted the relators leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint “setting forth specific facts showing that the defendants failed to 

 

2 LA. STAT. ANN. § 40:1841-1852 and LA. ADMIN. CODE tit. 55, part IX.

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

5 

obligate their subcontractors to comply with state LP gas statutes and 

regulations.” U.S. ex rel. McLain v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc., No. 06–11229, 2015 

WL 5321692, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 11, 2015); see also U.S. ex rel. McLain v. 

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 705, 722 (E.D. La. 2014). 

The Second Amended Complaint is the operative complaint in this case. 

In the district court’s September 2015 Order, it acknowledged that the relators 

went outside the scope of the leave given to them by the court, alleging not 

simply a theory of nullity, but also that “defendants misrepresented to FEMA 

that their subcontractors and staff had the proper training and licensing 

needed to perform LP gas installations or were in the process of receiving these 

qualifications.” McLain, 2015 WL 5321692 at *2. Furthermore, in its Order, 

the district court granted summary judgment to each Contractor as to the 

“nullity” claims. 

The district court issued an additional Order on October 8, 2015, 

clarifying that CH2M’s cross motion for summary judgment was granted, and 

the relators’ claims against CH2M were dismissed. In November 2015, the 

relators filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Pending Claims, in which 

they requested dismissal of pending claims related to “false statement” 

allegations against Fluor and Shaw, expressing a desire to preserve the

“nullity” claims against the Contractors for appeal. The district court granted 

the relators’ voluntary dismissal motion. Thus, only the “nullity” claims 

remained. In a final judgment, the district court dismissed the claims against 

all defendants, including those based on the nullity of the subcontracts and 

those against CH2M. 

The relators timely appealed. In their Notice of Appeal, the relators 

advise that they are appealing the district court’s orders with respect to Counts 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

6 

1, 4, and 7 of the Second Amended Complaint,3 including the district court’s 

dismissal of “all claims or counts based on the nullity and falsity of claims 

arising from Defendants’ installation subcontracts (and payments and 

damages therefrom).” 

II. 

This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de 

novo and applies the same standard as the district court. Langhoff Props., LLC 

v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 519 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2008). Summary 

judgment shall be granted by a court “if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A movant must support such a 

showing by citing to “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, 

affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of 

the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Id. 

56(c)(1)(a). The court weighs any reasonable inferences or doubts in favor of 

the non-moving party. Langhoff Props., 519 F.3d at 260.

III. 

The relators contend that defendants Shaw, CH2M, and Fluor filed false 

claims against FEMA, a government agency, in violation of the FCA. The 

foundation of the relators’ argument that the reimbursement claims were false 

is that the defendants’ subcontracts were null because the subcontractors

failed to comply with Louisiana statutes and regulations governing LP gas 

system installation. 

 

3 Count 1 applies to Fluor, Count 4 applies to Shaw, and Count 7 applies to CH2M. 

Each of these Counts alleges violations of the False Claims Act as a result of the THU 

installations. 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

7 

A. 

The FCA inflicts treble damages and civil penalties on entities that 

“knowingly present[], or cause[] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for 

payment or approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) (2012); U.S. ex rel. Spicer v. 

Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 364 (5th Cir. 2014). In analyzing a claim under the 

FCA, this circuit considers whether the plaintiff has alleged the following 

elements: 

(1) a false statement or fraudulent course of conduct; 

(2) made or carried out with the requisite scienter; 

(3)that was material; and 

(4)that is presented to the Government. 

U.S. ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health (Steury I), 625 F.3d 262, 267 (5th Cir. 

2010) (citing U.S. ex rel. Longhi v. United States, 575 F.3d 458, 468 (5th Cir. 

2009)). 

With respect to the four elements, “knowingly” is the “requisite scienter.” 

To “knowingly” make a false statement or engage in fraudulent conduct, one 

“(i) has actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of 

the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the 

truth or falsity of the information.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). Moreover, 

no “proof of specific intent to defraud” is “require[d].” Id. § (b)(1)(B). The term 

“claim” is broadly defined, encompassing “any request or demand, whether 

under a contract or otherwise, for money or property” that is presented to the 

Government; “claim” does not, however, encompass compensation for federal 

employment. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A), (B). 

A successful FCA claim often hinges on whether the false claim was 

“material.” The statute defines “material” as “having a natural tendency to 

influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or 

property.” Id. § (b)(4). As the Supreme Court noted recently, “[t]he materiality 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

8 

standard is demanding.” Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 

136 S. Ct. 1989, 2003 (2016). That the Government has conditioned payment 

on a provision in the contract may be “relevant” to determining whether the 

provision is material, but it is not “dispositive.” Id. Likewise, noted the Court, 

“if the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge 

that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those 

requirements are not material.” Id. 

B. 

The basis of the relators’ claim is that the installation subcontracts were 

“null” under Louisiana law, and that the Contractors, who paid the 

subcontractors for their installation work, filed a claim with the federal 

government based on these alleged null subcontracts, and thus violated the 

FCA.4 It is undisputed that the subcontractors did not possess “Class II” 

permits, described by Title 55, Section 113 of the Louisiana Revised Code, 

before beginning their work in installing the THUs. The relators therefore 

contend that because the subcontracts resulted in THU installations 

performed by subcontractors without Class II permits, the subcontracts

allegedly violated a rule of public order and were null under Louisiana law. 

 

4 The relators present an alternative argument in their Reply Brief that the falsity of 

the Contractors’ claims could be based upon an implied certification theory in the light of 

Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989. Under a theory of implied certification, “the False Claims Act 

encompasses claims that make fraudulent misrepresentations, which include certain 

misleading omissions.” Id. at 1999. The relators contend that by submitting claims for 

reimbursement to FEMA, the Contractors were impliedly certifying that they were in 

compliance with the LP gas regulations—which, in the relators’ view, was inherently 

misleading. We will not address this argument because it was presented for the first time in 

the relators’ Reply Brief. We have said that appellants “cannot raise new issues in a reply 

brief; [they] can only respond to arguments raised for the first time in the appellee’s brief.” 

Stephens v. C.I.T. Group/Equipment Financing, Inc., 955 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1992) 

(quoting 16 C. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3974, at 428 (1977)). 

Further, because we do not address relators’ argument raised in their Reply Brief, we deny 

as moot the Contractors’ opposed motions to file sur reply briefs. 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

9 

Furthermore, the relators assert that the subcontracts were likewise 

“unenforceable” under Section 181 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.5 

The relators argue that because the subcontracts are null and unenforceable, 

any claims for payment made by the Contractors to FEMA were “false” under 

the FCA. The relators point to Article 2030 of the Louisiana Civil Code, which 

states: 

A contract is absolutely null when it violates a rule of public order, 

as when the object of a contract is illicit or immoral. A contract 

that is absolutely null may not be confirmed. 

Absolute nullity may be invoked by any person or may be declared 

by the court on its own initiative. 

LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2030. 

To support their contract nullity argument, the relators during oral 

argument pointed to two cases from within this circuit: Davis v. Parker, 58 

F.3d 183 (5th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Fontenot, 665 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 

2011). In Davis, an attorney entered into a business transaction with his client 

in violation of Rule 5-104(A) of the Louisiana Code of Professional 

Responsibility. Davis, 58 F.3d at 189–90. Under this rule, before an attorney 

 

5 Section 181 provides that 

[i]f a party is prohibited from doing an act because of his failure to 

comply with a licensing, registration or similar requirement, a promise in 

consideration of his doing that act or of his promise to do it is unenforceable on 

grounds of public policy if 

(a) the requirement has a regulatory purpose, and

(b) the interest in the enforcement of the promise is clearly outweighed 

by the public policy behind the requirement.

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 181 (AM. LAW INST. 1981). To support their 

incorporation of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts into their argument, the relators 

point to Supreme Court case law indicating that federal contracts may be interpreted through 

the application of general contract principles. See Mobil Oil Explor. & Prod. v. United States, 

530 U.S. 604, 607-08 (2000) (quoting United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 895 (1996) 

(“When the United States enters into contract relations, its rights and duties therein are 

governed generally by the law applicable to contracts between private individuals.”). 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

10

may enter into a business transaction with a client, the attorney has a 

fiduciary obligation to “fully disclose” all relevant information and inform the 

client that the client should contact outside counsel. Anything less than full 

disclosure may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by the attorney. Although 

the case was primarily focused on the relevant statute of limitations rather 

than the issue of nullity, this court in Davis accepted the client’s classification 

of the claim based on a contract that led to a breach of fiduciary duty as a 

“nullity claim.” Id. at 190. 

The facts of Fontenot similarly involved a contract with an illicit object: 

an illegal loan to support a political campaign. This court found that “the cause 

of the obligation, or the reason the parties obligated themselves, was to 

circumvent Louisiana’s campaign finance law through the covert financing of 

[the] state senate campaign.” Fontenot, 665 F.3d at 646. Thus, the contract 

was deemed a nullity under Article 2030. Id. 

We find the relators’ reliance on Davis and Fontenot unconvincing and 

note that these two decisions have little persuasive authority in the instant 

case. In Davis, the client’s nullity argument hinged on the relationship 

between the attorney and the client; that is, the very formation of the business 

transaction contract was effectively void ab initio because it directly 

contradicted a mandate imposed by the Louisiana Code of Professional 

Responsibility. See Davis, 58 F.3d at 189–90. Similarly, in Fontenot, the 

“illegal [campaign] loan was an absolute nullity” because its object was a 

violation of Louisiana’s campaign finance law. Fontenot, 665 F.3d at 642, 646-

47. Here, conversely, the object of the subcontracts was to obligate the 

subcontractors to install the THUs “in accordance with all applicable federal, 

state and local codes and regulations.” Thus, the subcontracts here do not 

satisfy the criteria of “absolute nullity.” 

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/10/2017
No. 16-30328

11

 We therefore hold that Article 2030 does not render the subcontracts at 

issue “absolutely null,” a classification that would effectively cause them to be 

void ab initio. Whether or not the subcontractors possessed the Class II 

permits did not affect their ability to enter into the subcontracts with Fluor, 

CH2M, and Shaw. Further, the object of the subcontracts was neither “illicit” 

nor “immoral,” because the subcontracts obligated the subcontractors to 

comply with applicable codes and regulations. See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 

2030. Hence, the subcontracts did not “violate[] a rule of public order,” and 

consequently are not “null” under Article 2030.6 For generally the same 

reasons, the Contractors’ agreements with FEMA are not unenforceable under 

Section 181 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Thus, even if this court 

were to accept the relators’ argument that seeking reimbursement for a 

contract that is null under Louisiana law constitutes a false claim under the 

FCA, the Contractors’ claims for reimbursement here were not “false,” because 

the subcontracts were not null. We note in addition that because the relators’ 

basis for FCA liability fails, we need not address the question of the measure 

of damages in the event of a False Claims Act violation. 

IV. 

 In sum, for the reasons herein given, the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED. 

 

6 The Contractors also contend that even if the subcontracts were deemed null under 

Louisiana law, the Contractors would nonetheless have been entitled to reimbursement from 

FEMA on the “cost-plus-fixed-fee” basis, a factor that would preclude actionable falsity under 

the FCA. Further, they contend that because FEMA instructed the Contractors to continue 

the THU installations notwithstanding the subcontractors’ lack of LP gas permits, and 

because FEMA and the Contractors were unsure as to whether the LP gas regulations 

applied to their work, the Contractors’ claims against the government agency would fail to 

meet the materiality and scienter elements of a False Claims Act violation. Because we hold 

that the Contractors made no false claim as alleged and argued by the relators, we need not 

address these issues.

 Case: 16-30328 Document: 00513906388 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/10/2017