DOCSLIB.ORG

20190201154519225 Foreman.Cody.Petition.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20190201154519225 Foreman.Cody.Petition.Pdf No. _______ In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- ♦ --------------------------- UNITED STATES EX REL. MUGE CODY, Petitioner, v. MANTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent. -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- Michael L. Foreman Counsel of Record PENN STATE LAW CIVIL RIGHTS APPELLATE CLINIC 329 Innovation Boulevard, Suite 118 University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 (814) 865-3832 [email protected] R. Scott Oswald John T. Harrington Andrew D. Howell THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC 888 17th Street, NW, 9th floor Washington, DC 20006 (202) 261-2806 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Dated: February 1, 2019 THE LEX GROUPDC i 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. i Suite 500, #5190 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-0001 i (800) 856-4419 i www.thelexgroup.com i QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), the Court articulated standards for reviewing an appellate court’s reversal of a jury verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). The Court emphasized that in reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law “the court should review all the evidence … and the court must draw all favorable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” The question presented is whether the appellate court erred in not applying the Reeves standards in a case brought under the False Claims Act and the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act and erred in reversing the jury verdict in favor of Muge Cody and subsequently reversing the trial court’s denial of the employer’s Rule 50 motion for a judgment as a matter of law. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner in this Court is Muge Cody who was plaintiff in the district court and plaintiff-appellee in the court of appeals. Kevin Cody was a plaintiff in the district court and plaintiff-appellee in the court of appeals but is not a party before this Court. Respondent in this Court is ManTech International Corporation, which was the defendant in district court and defendant-appellant in the court of appeals. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Muge Cody is an individual. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ......................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... vii PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................ 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED......................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 4 A. Overview ................................................ 4 B. Factual History ..................................... 6 C. Proceedings Below ............................... 12 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............... 14 I. The Circuit Court decision conflicts with the Court’s unanimous longstanding decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products and ignores the Court’s decision in Desert Palace v. Costa ....... 14 v A. Introduction .............................. 14 B. The Fourth Circuit’s review in this case mirrors the lower court action in Reeves, where this Court held the Appellate Court usurped the role of the jury ...... 21 C. The Fourth Circuit’s error is further compounded because it failed to recognize this Court’s Ruling in Desert Palace v. Costa that, in cases where motive is required, circumstantial evidence is just as probative as direct evidence ..................................... 29 II. The issue is of significant national importance given Congressional intent to create a meaningful cause of action protecting those who challenge fraud under the False Claims Act and the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act ...................................... 31 III. This case presents an excellent vehicle to address this important issue and reinforce the appellate court’s limited role in reviewing factual determinations made by a jury and accepted by the trial judge..................................................... 35 vi CONCLUSION ......................................................... 36 APPENDIX: Unpublished Opinion of The United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit entered August 8, 2018 .................................. 1a Judgment of The United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit entered August 8, 2018 ................................ 46a Memorandum Opinion and Order of The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Virginia entered May 19, 2017................................... 48a Order of The United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit Re: Denying Petition for Rehearing entered September 5, 2018 .......................... 69a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008) ........................................ 34 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, NC, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) ............................ 17, 20, 29 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................ 22 Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Sols. (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803 (1st Cir. 2011) .......................... 16 Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 502 (2006) ........................................ 14 Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (2006) ........................................ 36 Blunt v. Little, 3 F.Cas. 760 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1822) ............ 19-20 Comm’r v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3 (1987) ............................................ 36 Cone v. West Virginia Pulp &Paper Co. 330 U.S. 212 (1947) ........................................ 18 viii Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 529 U.S. 90 (2003) ........................ 14, 29, 35, 37 Digital Realty Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018) ...................................... 33 EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2016) ...................... 15 Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) ........................................ 19 Graham Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (2010) ........................................ 34 Grunenthal v. Long Island R.R. Co., 393 U.S. 156 (1968) ........................................ 19 Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645 (1946) ........................................ 17 Marchan v. John Miller Farms, Inc., __ F.Supp.3d __, 2018 WL 6518660 (D.N.D. 2018) ............................ 17 McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) ........................................ 36 Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 610 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2010) .......................... 15 Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1999) .......................... 21 ix Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) ................................ passim Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) ........................................ 34 Rogers v. Mo. Pac.ific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) ........................................ 19 Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401 (2011) ........................................ 34 Sioux City & Pac. R.R. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (1873) ......................... 14 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436 (2016) ...................................... 34 The Quickstep, 76 U.S. 665 (1869) .......................................... 18 Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) .................................. 22, 37 United States ex rel. Cody v. ManTech Int’l, Corp., 207 F. Supp. 3d 610 (E.D. Va. 2016) ............. 34 United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of N.Y., 556 U.S. 928 (2009) ........................................ 34 United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586 (1957) ........................................ 18 x United States v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ........................ 15 Universal Health Serv. Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S.Ct. 1989 (2016) ..................................... 31 Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ........................................ 17 Williams v. W.D. Sports, N.M., Inc., 497 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) ...................... 16 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION U.S. CONST. amend. VII ......................... 17, 18, 19, 20 STATUTES 10 U.S.C. § 2409 .................................................... 3, 33 20 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..................................................... 1 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) ................................................... 32 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1) .............................................. 2-3 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) .......................................... passim Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) ........................................................ 36 xi OTHER AUTHORITIES Eric Schnapper, Judges Against Juries— Appellate Review of Federal Jury Verdicts, 1989 Wis. L. Rev. 237 (1989) ......................... 18 FCA. Top False Claims Act Cases by Civil Award Amount, Taxpayers Against Fraud
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is the Supreme Court Irrational: Trump V. Hawaii
    Owsley Book Proof (Do Not Delete) 6/30/20 7:09 PM IS THE SUPREME COURT IRRATIONAL: TRUMP V. HAWAII BRIAN L. OWSLEY* I. INTRODUCTION President Donald Trump told the American people during the 2016 election that he would discriminate against Muslims if elected. Although each new travel ban the President went on to implement presented a moving target, they all were rooted in the same discriminatory animus. The various challenges to these travel bans often focused on alleged violations of the First Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act.1 This article, however, does not address those arguments, but instead tackles a different constitutional issue: rational basis review. No doubt, the Supreme Court’s case law addressing rational basis analysis typically favors the government. Nonetheless, there is a strong argument that the Trump travel bans violate the Constitution because they are irrational. Specifically, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii2 was wrongly decided because these travel bans are both underinclusive and overinclusive. Between 1975 and 2015, citizens from the nations designated in the travel bans had not committed any terrorist attacks resulting in any deaths within the United States.3 Indeed, “[o]ver the last four decades, 20 out of 3.25 million refugees welcomed to the United States have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil, and only three Americans have been killed in attacks committed by refugees—all by Cubans in the 1970s.”4 Thus, the argument that the travel bans will prevent or reduce terrorist attacks in the United States is not rational.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Annual Report
    OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER 2013 ANNUAL REPORT www.openworld.gov OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER BOARD OF TRUSTEES As of December 31, 2013 CHAIRMAN Mr. Walter Scott, Jr. APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE The Honorable Martin Heinrich (NM) United States Senate The Honorable Roger F. Wicker (MS) United States Senate APPOINTED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry (NE) United States House of Representatives APPOINTED BY THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE The Honorable Jim Moran (VA) United States House of Representatives EX OFFICIO CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen (NH) Chairwoman Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Tom Cole (OK) Chairman Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives EX OFFICIO The Honorable James H. Billington Librarian of Congress (Founding Chairman, 2001–2010) APPOINTED BY THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS FOR 2012–2015 The Honorable R. James Nicholson The Honorable James F. Collins APPOINTED BY THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS FOR 2010–2013 Mr. Michael Yanney EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The Honorable John O’Keefe Open World Leadership Center | 2013 1 LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The President of the Senate The Speaker of the House of Representatives Dear Friends of Open World: Welcome to the Open World Leadership Center’s 2013 annual report. As the political Dear Mr. President and Mr. Speaker: and social tides of Eurasia shift, the Center has stayed relevant through programs themed around emerging issues in the participating countries. Each year, our report highlights a It is my privilege to submit to you, on behalf of the Open World Leadership Center’s different aspect of Open World that makes our exchanges unique and effective.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Table of Contents Introduction
    SPRING 2018 CIVIL RIGHTS by UNT DALLAS LAW REVIEW ARTICLE ARE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRAVEL BANS RATIONAL? BRIAN L. OWSLEY* Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2 I. Travel Ban I ..................................................................................................... 3 A. Executive Order 13769 Targeted Nationals from Seven Muslim Nations. ................................................................................................. 3 B. Executive Order 13769 Spawned Litigation Across the Country. ........ 4 II. Travel Ban II .................................................................................................... 9 A. Executive Order 13780 Revoked Executive Order 13769 and Targeted Nationals from Six Muslim Nations. .................................................... 9 B. Executive Order 13780 Spawned Additional Litigation Across the Country. .............................................................................................. 10 III. Travel Ban III ................................................................................................ 17 IV. Rational Basis Requires that the Government’s Actions be Rationally Related to a Governmental Interest. ........................................................................... 19 A. Under-Inclusive Statutes Generally Satisfy Rational Basis Review. .. 20 B. Over-Inclusive Statutes Generally Satisfy Rational Basis Review..... 22 C. Statutes That Are Both
    [Show full text]
  • Wednesday 11/18/20 This Material Is Distributed by Ghebi LLC on Behalf
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 11/19/2020 9:06:09 AM Wednesday 11/18/20 This material is distributed by Ghebi LLC on behalf of Federal State Unitary Enterprise Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, and additional information is on file with the Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia. Barack Obama Had to Quit Coaching Daughter’s Basketball Team Due to Parent Complaints, Book Reveals Former US President Barack Obama this week published a memoir titled “A Promised Land,” the first of a planned two volumes the former president has written to disclose insights into his tenure as the president from 2009 to 2017. In his memoir, Obama shares the story of how he and his aide, Reggie Love, in 2010 began coaching basketball practices for his daughter Sasha’s team, called the Vipers, at Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. Despite a successful run coaching Sasha’s team, Obama reveals in his book that he gave up the coaching role after parents of children on rival teams began complaining that their kids were not being trained by the 44th president. “After observing an adorable, but chaotic, first couple of games, Reggie and I took it upon ourselves to draw up some plays and volunteered to conduct a few informal Sunday afternoon practice sessions with the team. We worked on the basics: dribbling, passing, making sure your shoelaces were tied before you ran onto the court,” Obama recounts in an excerpt obtained by the Sunday Times. “And although Reggie could get a little too intense when we ran drills — ‘Paige, don’t let Isabel punk you like that’ — the girls seemed to have as much fun as we did,” he adds, also revealing that when the team beat their rival in the school league championship, he and Love “celebrated like it was the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association] finals.” Obama also notes that after a year of coaching, fellow parents from a rival Sidwell team started complaining about him being a Vipers coach.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Compndium
    Page | 1 Centre for Research on Islam and Global Media (CRIGM) Department of Media and Communication Studies Faculty of Social Sciences International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI), Sector H-10, Islamabad, Pakistan. [email protected] For Contact: +92-51-9019743, +92-51-9019520 ISSN: 2520-3215 Executive Editor: Patron in Chief Professor Dr. Fazal Rahim Khan Qasuria Prof. Dr. Ahmad Yousif A. Al-Draiweesh Director Centre for Research on Islam and Global Media (CRIGM) President, International Islamic University Faculty of Social Sciences Islamabad (IIUI), Sector H-10 Department of Media and Communication Studies Islamabad, Pakistan. International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI), Sector H-10, For Contact: +92-51-9258064 Islamabad, Pakistan. [email protected] For Contact: +92-51-9019743, [email protected] Email: [email protected] Editor: Professor Dr. Zafar Iqbal Baloch Chairman, Department of Media and Communication Studies Faculty of Social Sciences International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI), Sector H-10, Islamabad, Pakistan. For Contact: +92-51-9019743, +92-51-9019520 [email protected] Email: [email protected] Centre for Research on Islam and Global Media (CRIGM), Team: Advisory Board Hassan Shahzad Dr. Shabbir Hussain Member of Editorial Commettee, CRIGM Assistant Professor, DMCS Muhammad Tariq Awan Assistant Director, CRIGM Yasar Arafat Syed Inaam ur Rehman Research Associate, CRIGM Assistant Professor, DMCS Qamar Abbas Rooh-ul-Amin Khan Research Associate, CRIGM Assistant Professor, DMCS Abid Zafar Muhammad Atif Shahzad Rsearch Associate & Social Media Promoter, CRIGM Lecturer, DMCS Nauman Riaz Sial Muhammad Junaid Ghauri Research Associate & Designer, CRIGM Lecturer, DMCS Waqar Ahmed Mrs. Amrat Haq Research Associate, CRIGM Assistant Professor-DMCS Female Tahir Mehmood Malik Mrs.
    [Show full text]