UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) UNITED STAT ES, e

x r e l. , THOMAS O’NEIL L MORG AN, ) ) ) P laintif f-Relator, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1757 (RMC) ) SCIENCE APP LICATIONS INTERNATIONAL COMP ANY, e t al . , ) ) ) Defendan ts. ) ) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Thomas O’N eill Morg an instituted this s uit in September 2005, a lleg ing that Science Ap pli c a tio ns I nte rn a tio na l Co. ( “ SAI C” ) a nd SPA RTA , Inc . ( “ SPA RTA ” ), bo th f e de ra l c on tr a c tor s, violated the F alse Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3728 et seq. (“F CA”). Af ter y ears of impossibly

slow investigation, the United States declined to inter vene in June 2008. Although repr esente d by counsel wh en t h e co mp l ai n t wa s fi l ed an d t h ro u gh o u t t h e in v es t i gat i o n , M r. M o rga nh as b ee np ro ce ed i n g pr o

se since S eptember 2008, when prior counsel withdrew. He now has informe d the Court that he has

n o t l o c a te d

c o u n s e l s in c e th e nan d

w il l n o lo n g e r

s e e k c ounsel. See Pl.’s Notice Advising Ct. of Status of Couns e l [Dk

t. # 50 ]. B e c a

us e an in div idu a l c ann ot r e pr e se nt t he Un ite d St a te s pr o s e , and the Re la tor

in a n F CA c a se sta

nd s in the sh oe s o f th e fe de ra l g ov e rnme nt, the Court mus t di smi ss Counts I -Xand

XI Iof the Com pla int

. As to Count XI , whi c h all e g e s re ta liatio n by bo th D e fe nd a nts based on Mr . Morg an’s whistleblowe r ac tivity , SPAR TA has f iled a moti o n to dismi ss for fa ilure to state a c laim, which Mr. Morg an opposes.

The Co mp la in t d o e s n o t a ll e g e th a t SP A RT A w a s M r . M o r g an ’ s e mp lo y e r or that-2-

SPA RTAand

SAI C w e re joi nt e mpl oy e rs . Th e Court ha s re -r e a d the 86 2- pa ra g ra phCom pla int in its entirety , noting that it was p re p ar ed b y counsel for Mr. Morg an, and c ould find very littl e that offe rs any

support for a

joint employ er f

inding, whic h is what Mr. Morg an ar g ues, in other terminolog y , in his Oppositi on. Be cause there was not an employ er- employ ee r elationship betwee n Mr. M org an and SPAR TA, and beca use S PARTA cannot be sued by Mr. Morg an pr o s e on the F CA alleg ations, SP ARTA’s motion to dism iss will be gr anted. I. F AC TS As noted above , the Complaint is l ong and deta iled, quite bey ond notice-ple ading require ments. The Court will summarize briefly t h e p o i n t s that are rele vant to dispositi on of the pending motion.

Thomas O’Ne ill Morg an is a former Senior Scientist at SAI C. He beg an wor k there

o n M ay 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 a s a m e mb e r o f t h e B l a c k T e a m p r o v i d i n g s u p p o rt t o t h e M i s s i l e D e f

e n s e A g e n c y, a compone nt ag ency

of the De partment of D efe nse. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 64. SAI C employ ed Mr. Morg an to assist on feder al contra cts it maintained with the Missil e Defense Ag ency . Id. ¶ 2. “Mr . Morg an

wa s h ir e d b y

SAI C to pr ov ide the g ov e rnme nt w ith bu dg e tary and te c hn ic a l e xpe rt ise ba se d on his

more than twenty y ear s of post doc torate e x perie nce in missile defe nse.” Id. ¶ 1 5. SPA RTAa lso provided support to the Missil e Def ense Ag ency pursuant to f eder al contra cts and ofte n drewon the

resour ces of

SAI C to fulfill its obligations under its contra cts. I n this relationship, SP ARTA was the prime contra ctor with the Missil e Def ense Ag ency and SAI C w as the sub-contra ctor. Id. ¶ 57. Mr. Morg an wa s initi ally

hired by SAI C to assist wit h two of these sub- contra cts. Id. ¶ 53. He repor ted direc tly to SAI C’s Area

Manag er, B ien Vu. Id. ¶ 58. The Mis s i l e D ef

en s e A gen cy

org anizes technica l expertise around seve ral c olor-code d-3-

working g roups and hire s outside experts to st aff these tea ms. Id. ¶ 16. The B lack Te am was

or g anize d to pr ov ide g uid anc e re g ard inga llo c a tio n o f r e so ur c e s and de te rm inatio ns of

ho w t o h a nd le problems i n missil e def

ense te chnolog y . Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Morg an was hired to se rve as liaison betwee n the B lack Te am and the G overnme nt. Id. ¶ 22. Over time, Mr

. Morg an “disc overe d that SAI C and SPA RTAsu

pe rv iso rs we re pr ima

ri ly c on c e rn e d with se c ur ingbu sin e ss a nd us ingc on tr a c t f

un ds to benef it their companies, of

ten at the e x pense of

fulfilli n g t he compa

nies’ oblig ations to the Gover nment.” Id. ¶ 2 3. Th e bu lk o f t he Com pla int c on sis ts o f forme r cou ns el’ s e ff or ts t o d e ta il the se a lle g a tio ns .

The Complaint never

alleg es that S PARTA was Mr. Morg an’s e mploy er. It does

a lle g e that in

July of 20 04 , M r. Mo rg an me t w ithMr

. Vu , De nn is Ni his e r, the c on tr a c tin g a uth or ity for the G overnme nt, and Paul Kra use, a SPARTA employ ee w ho acte d as Mr. Nihiser ’s Deputy and Budg et Mana g er. Id. ¶¶ 65, 68. Mr. Nihi ser assigne d the dut ies of Black Te am Administrative L ead to Mr. Morg an. Id. ¶ 66.

Af te r r e c e ivi ng his ne w a ssi g nme nt, Mo rg an me t V u a nd Kr a us e to discuss the color-c oded teams’ budg ets. Kra use beg an the mee ting by ha nd ingVu a sh e e t of pa pe r w ithhis pr op os e d b ud g e ts.
. . . K ra us e indic ated that Morga

n was to use these estimates and pr epar e the budg et submission, under Morg an’s a uthor ity as the a dminist rative lead. Id. ¶¶ 72-73, 76. Howe ver, w hen Mr. Morg an pre pare d the budg et as he believed it should be done , it was rejecte d twice and “Vu told Morg an to use the f unds exactly

as allocated by

Kra use.” Id. ¶ 86. Mr. Morg an also a lleg es that Mr. Vu assig ned him tasks of working for SPARTA’s benef it. See , e.g. , id. ¶¶ 289-322. For example, Mr. Morg an conte nds that “SAI C allowed SPARTA to use Morg an’s r esume to help obtain a contra ct.” Id. ¶ 325. David Bee rman, SPARTA’s Contract-4-

Manag er, dire cted Mr. Mor g an to pre pare the re s u m e and then included it with a list of qualified personne l SP ARTA would use to per form on a g overnme nt contrac t. Id. ¶¶ 326-27. In addition, Mr. Morg an alleg es that SPARTA and SAI C personnel shar ed off ice spa ce at 1911 N. For

t Mey er D rive in Arling ton, Virg inia, throug h a sublet of spa ce by SAI C from SPARTA. Id. ¶¶ 348, 350. A f t e r p a g e s o f

d e t a i l e d a l l e g a t i o n s t h a tM r . M o r g ana s s e rt s s h o w t h a tS A IC kn o w i n g l y a n d i n t e n t i o n a l l y p r o d u c e d s h o d dy w o r

k o ni t s c o n t r a c tw i t h t h e M i s s i l e D e f e n s e A g e n c y, he a lle g e s tha t he “ re pe a te dly c omp la ine d to mana g e me nt b oth a t SA I C and

SPA RTA , th e pr ime contra ctor for

SAI C relation[ship] with [ the Missile Defe nse Ag ency ], reg ardingthe quality of the work pe rfor

med. Nonethele ss, SAI C continued to willfully and recklessly bill the [ Missil e De fense ] Ag ency for wor k that it knew was not c orre ct.” Id. ¶¶ 73 0- 31 . Wh e n h e dis c ov e re d th e De fe nd a nts ’

a lle g e d f ra ud ule nt b us ine ss p ra c tic e s, Mr . M or g an “b e g an to op e nly qu e sti on the ir c omm itm e nt t o ethical a nd leg al standar ds.” Id. ¶ 7 40

. As ide fr om c on fr on tin g Mr

. Vu se ve ra l ti me s a bo ut t he se indiscretions, he a lso beg an to express his conce rns to Mr. B eer man. Id. ¶ 741. Then, in Nove mber of 2004, a fter nume rous complaints by Mr. Morg an reg ardingthe D e f e n d an ts ’ b u s in e s s p r a c ti c e s , M r . B e e r ma n an d M r . V u r e mo v e d M r . M o r g an from a T hrea t Sy stem Eng ineer ing pr oject which was assig ned to Mr. Morg an by the Missile Defe nse Ag ency Na t i o n al T ea m Chairman, Gordon N iva. Id. ¶ 7 4 2

. M r . M o r g anc o mp la in e d to M e s s r s . V uand Be erma n, pleadingthat their ac tions were “ unethical . . . because SAI C was withholding the se rvice s it h a d c o n tr a c te d w it

h th e [M is s il e D e f

e n s e A g e n c y ] to provide.” Id. ¶ 745. W hen Mr. Morg an confr onted Mr. B eer

man direc tly

about his unethical actions which cause d SAI C to provide “shoddy

and su bs tand ard ” wo rk , M r. B e e rm an to ld M r. Mo rg an to ke e p th a t in fo rm a tio n “ a mon g our c ir c le . . . [,] wh i ch M o rgan inter prete d at the time as mea ning not to re port it to the [ Depa rtment of-5-

Def ense] I nspector G ener al, or a ny one else who could take action.” Id. ¶ 7 47 . D e sp ite thi s ins tr uc tio n, Mr . Morgan add e d a no te to h is w e e kly

re po rt that he ha d b e e n r e mov e d f ro m a g overnme nt assigne d activity “for rea sons of SAI C bill ing.” Id. ¶ 7 48 . Upo n r e vie wi ngthe re po rt , Mr. Vu dire cted Mr. Mor g an to re move the stateme nt. Id. ¶ 749.

Shortly befor e a me eting that Mr. Niva, the Missi le Def ense A g ency

National Te am Chairman, had dir ecte d Mr. Morg an to attend, Mr. Be erma n notified Mr. Niva that Mr. M org an had been r eplac ed but g ave no r eason. Id. ¶ 750. In response , Mr. Morg an se n t an email to Mr. B e e r m an , “ s t a t i n g t h a t S A I C ’ s an d S P A R T A ’ s a s s i g n m e n t s o f h i s t i m e a m o u n t e d to f raudin manag ing its contra ct, and that SAI C was more interested in its employ ee bonus prog ram than it was in pr oviding the g overnme nt with a leg itimate service .” Id. ¶ 754. Acc ording to the Complaint, Mr. Be erma n showed the e mail to Mr. Vu and to L ee Phillips of SAI C. Id. ¶ 755. L ee Phil lips then pr omp tly c a lle d M r. Mo rg an in fo r a me e tin g and tol d him that he c ou ld e ith e r r e sig n im me diate ly or be f ired. Id. ¶ 7 57 . F e ari ngthat g e tti ngfi re d w ou ld h arm his re pu ta tio n, Mr . M or g an r e luc tantl y resig ned. Id. ¶ 756.

Count XIof the Complaint alleg es that Mr. Morg an “w as re place d on a proje ct and then fired for complaining about SAI C’s business prac tices.” Id. ¶ 852. I t further char g es that Mr. Morg an “has suffe red e mploy ment rela ted damag es pursua

nt to 31 U.S.C . Section 3730(h) a s he wa s fired f or eng ag ing in whistleblowe r ac tivity .” Id. ¶ 853. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A motion to di smiss pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6) c halleng es th e a de qu a c y

of a c omp la int

on its fa c e , te sti ngwh e the r a pla int if f h a s p ro pe rl y

state d a c la im. Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 8(a ) re quires that a c omplaint contain “a short and plain statement-6-

of the c la im s ho wi ngthat th e ple a de r i s e nti tle d to re lie f. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 8( a ). A c omp la int mus t be sufficie nt “ to g ive a defe ndant fair notice of the claims ag ainst him.” Be ll A tl. Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 127 S. Ct . 1955, 1964 (2 0 0 7 ). Although a complaint does not nee d detailed f actua l alleg ations, a pla int if f’ s o bli g a tio n to pr ov ide the g ro un ds of his e nti tle me nt t o r e lie f “ re qu ir e s mo re tha n la be ls and conc lusions, and a formulaic rec itation of the eleme nts of a ca use of a ction will not do.” Id. at 1964-65 (inter

nal citations omitted). Rule 8(a) require s a “showing” and not just a blanket assertion of a r ight to re lief. Id. at 1965 n.3.

A c ourt mu st tre a t th e c omp la int ’s fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns a s tr ue , “ e ve n if

do ub tf ul i n fac t,” id . at 1965, and must draw all rea sonabl e i n fer ence s in the plaintiff’s favor. Macharia v. United States , 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Ev e n so, the fa c ts al le g e d “mu st be e no ug h to raise a rig ht to relief a

bove the spe culative leve l,” Twom bly , 127 S. Ct . at 1965, and the c ourt nee d

no t a c c e pt a s tr

ue inf e re nc e s uns up po rt e d b y

fa c ts s e t out in

the c omp la int

or le g a l c on c lus ion s c a st as fa ctual alleg ations. Browning v. Clint on , 292 F.3d 2 3 5 , 2 4 2 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint

ne e ds some information about the c ircumstanc es gi v i n g rise to the cla ims.” Aktieselsk abet Af 21. Nov. 2001 v. FameJeans, I nc. , 525 F.3d 8, 1 6 n . 4 ( D

. C

. C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) (em p h asis in o ri gi n al). I n d eci ding a R ule 12(b)( 6) mo t i on , t he C ou r t m ay con si der only “t he f act s al l eg ed i n t he c ompl a i nt , do c ume nt s a t t a c he d a s e xhi bi t s or i nc or por a t e d b y r e f e r e nc e i n t he c ompl a i nt , a nd

m at t er s abo ut w hich t he C ou r t m ay t ake judici al no t i ce. ” Gus t av e - Sc hmi dt v. C hao , 22 6 F

. Su pp. 2 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 6 (D

. D

. C

. 2 0 0 2 ) (citat ion o m it ted ). Once a claim has been stated ade quately , “it may be supported by

showing any

set of fa cts consistent with the alleg ations in the complaint.” Twom bly , 127 S. Ct . at 1968-69.-7- III . A NA LY SIS SPAR TA first moves to dismiss C ounts I -X a nd XI I of the Complaint beca use there is no rea sonable possi bility that Mr. M org an will obtain new counsel. A l ay person is not qualified to repre sent the United States in a qui tam action. See Rocke feller v. W

estinghouse Elec . Co. , 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2003), aff’d , No. 03-7120, 2004 WL 180264 (D.C. Cir. J an. 21, 2004). Be cause the Relator in an F CA case stands in the shoes of the fede ral g overnme nt as a plaintiff, the Relator may

not proce ed pr o s e . Since SPARTA’s filing of its motion to d i s m i s s , M r. Morg an notified the Court that he has been una ble to reta in new counse l and re quested that the Court proc eed to t he me ri ts o f h is c a se . T he Court the re fo re mus t di smi ss Counts I -X and XI Iof the Com pla int

. S P AR T A a l s o s ee k s d i s m i s s al o f C o u n t XI, t o t h e ex t en t i t m i gh t b e re adt o ch ar ge SPAR TA with violating Mr. Morg an’s rig hts a s a putative whistleblower, be cause SPAR TA wa s not Mr. Morg an’s e mploy er. Mot. to Dismiss of SPAR TA, I nc. (“D ef.’ s Mem.”) at 3 [Dkt. # 28]. The F a lse Cla ims Ac t pr ov ide s in re le va nt p art : Any e mp lo y e e w h o is d is c h ar g e d

. . . o r in an y o th e r ma nner discriminated ag ainst in the terms and conditions of employ ment by his

. . . em

p lo y e r b e c a u s e o f la w f u l a c ts d o n e b y

th e e mp lo y e e on behalf of the employ ee or others in furthe ranc e of a n action under

[t he Fa lse Claims Act], i ncludi ng the investig ation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in a

n action filed or to be filed unde r [the Fa lse Claims Act], shall be entitl ed to all relief nec essar y to make the employ ee w hole. Such re lief shall include r einstatement with the same se nio ri ty

statu s. . . . A n e mpl oy e e may br ingan a c tio n [in d is tr ic t c o u rt]

. . . f

o r [r e li e f ]. 31 U. S.C. § 3 73 0( h) . A s SPA RTApo int s o ut, the statut e pr oh ibi ts r e ta liatio n by an e mpl oy e r a g a ins t an employ ee for enga g ing in a wide rang e of pr otected a ctivity . Only a whisteblowe r’s e mploy er, ho we ve r, is s ub

je c t to lia bil ity fo r r e ta liatio n o r d isc ri min a tio n und e r s e c tio n 3 73 0( h) . T hu s, if-8-

SPAR TA we re not Mr

. Morg an’s e mploy er it would be a n improper de fenda

nt even if SAI C subcontra cted with and w orked c losely with SPARTA on projec ts to which Mr. Morg an was a ssigne d. See U .S. ex re l. Chandler v. Hek toen Institute for Medical Re search , 35 F. S u pp. 2d 1075, 1087 (N.D. I ll. 1999) (plaintiff alleg ed, “[a]t best,” a conspirac y

betwee n a county

hospital and plaintiff’s employ er, a

medical r esea

rch institute, to remove c erta in matters from the pla intiff’s re sponsibili ties as projec t director of

a re sear ch study

jointly administered by

the hospital and t he resear ch institute, bu t li a bil ity un de r § 37 30 (h ) d oe s n ot e xten d to no n- e mpl oy e rs on the ba sis of

a c on sp ir a c y

); Mruz v. Caring, Inc. , 991 F. Supp. 701, 709 (D.N.J. 1998) (“the hallmark of liability under se ction 3730(h) is an ‘employ

ment relationship,’” and non-e mploy ers may n o t b e held liable unde r the qui tam statute for r etaliatory employ ment actions even if they conspired with the employ er to discha rg e or discriminate ag ainst a whistleblowing employ ee ; h ad C ong ress wa nted to extend liabili ty

to none mpl oy e rs , it

c ou ld h a ve done so , as it d id i n § 37 29 ); see also Ve ssel v. DPS Assoc iates of Charleston, Inc. , 148 F.3d 407, 412 ( 4th Cir. 1998) (liability under qui tam statute does not extend to s ub c on tr a c tor

e mpl oy e e s o r t o in de pe nd e nt c on tr a c tor s) ; Pa ll a d i n o e xre l. U .S . v . U NA o f So uth e rn New Jersey , 68 F. Supp. 2d 455, 464-65 (D.N.J. 1999) (cla im ag ainst non-employ er w as dismissed with prejudice for f

ailure to state a

claim). Count XI is c lear : it a lleg es that Mr. Morg an suff ere d damag es bec ause he was fir ed by SAI C for eng ag ing in whistleblower a ctivity . Compl. ¶ 853. I t does not alleg e that he w as fire d by SPAR TA. See id. ¶¶

85 1- 54 . A lth ou g h n e ith e r C ount X Isp e c if ic a lly , n or the Com pla int in i ts

e nti re ty , a lle g e s tha

t Mr

. Mo rg an wa s fi re d by SPA RTA , Count XI do e s state that, in add it io n to being fired by

SAI C, Mr. Morg an “w as re place d on a proje ct . . . for complaining a bout SAI C’s business prac tices,” id. ¶ 852. The Com plaint arguably alleg es t hat Mr. Morg an wa s removed f romMr. Morg an pre sents an e- mail from SPARTA’s counsel threa t ening to reque st that the 1 Court or de r M r. Mo rg an to pa

y SPA RTA ’s re a so na

ble a tto rn e y s’ fe e s and

e xpe ns e s in

de fe nd ingthi s matter. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss of S parta , Ex

. C-1. The Court dismiss es SPARTA from this case be cause it never had an employ er- employ ee relationship with Mr. Morg an. The Court does not, and bec ause the case ag ainst SP ARTA neve r re ache d the disco v er y p h as e, ca nnot make any fa c tua l c on c lus ion s r e g ard ingthe ba sic a lle g a tio ns of ret ali atio n a g a ins t Mr . M or g an b y c e rt a in SPA RTAe mpl oy e e s. Th e Court the re fo re do e s n ot c on c lud e that Mr . M or g an’s cla im s ag a ins t SPAR TA are frivolous, vexatious, or broug ht f or the purpose of hara ssment. Mr. Morg an will not be re quired to pay

SPAR TA’s attorney s’ fe es. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4). -9- the projec t by

Mr. B eer

man, SPARTA’s Contract Mana g er, a nd that the re moval d am aged Mr

. Morg an’s r eputation, see id. ¶¶ 750- 54, but there is no indication any wher e i n t h e C o m p l aint that SPA RTAand

Mr . M or g an e ve r h a d a

n e mpl oy e r- e mpl oy e e re la tio ns hip

. Th e fa c tua l a lle g a tio ns in the Complaint sim ply

fail to alleg e that SPARTA’s role in Mr

. Morg an’s work for SAI C render ed it a joint employ er. Thus, Count XI must be dismis sed as a g ainst SP ARTA. 1 IV . C ON CL USI ON Counts I throug h X an d C ount XI I , which adva nce a lleg ations of FCA violations ag ainst SP AR TA and SAI C, will be dismi ssed bec ause Mr . Morg an ca nnot repre sent the United States without counsel. SPAR TA’s motion to dismi ss C o u n t XI , which alleg es re taliatory termination of e mploy

ment, will be g rante d and the suit ag ainst SP ARTA will be dismissed. A memorializing orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

Date : Apr il 3 , 2 00 9 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge