United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
JEFFREY M. SIMONEAUX
E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS & COMPANY
D. DICK JUDGE.
the Court, is Plaintiff, Jeffrey Simoneaux's, Motion
to Correct, Alter Or Amend Order and Judgment, For Relief
from Order and Judgment, And For
Reconsideration. The Motion is opposed by Defendant E.I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company's (“DuPont”)
and Plaintiff has filed a Reply.
seeks amendment and clarification of this Court's
Judgment on remand which dismissed Plaintiff's
reverse FCA claim with prejudice. Plaintiff seeks
clarification and confirmation that his retaliation claim
remains viable. DuPont counters that the FCA retaliation
claim fails as a matter of law upon dismissal of the
underlying reverse FCA claim.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND POSTURE
claims were advanced by the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Simoneaux in
this case; a reverse FCA claim and an FCA employment retaliation
claim. The Court denied summary
judgment as to both claims and denied DuPont's
Motion to certify for appeal the denial of its Motion for
Summary Judgment on the FCA claim. The matter proceeded to
trial and, after hearing evidence for two weeks, the jury
returned a verdict for DuPont and the Court entered a
Judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
However, subsequently, the Court set aside the verdict and
judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) upon finding by clear and
convincing evidence that DuPont obtained the verdict through
“fraud…, misrepresentation, or other
misconduct” such that the Relator was prevented from
fully and fairly presenting his case.
a lengthy and costly re-trial, DuPont moved the Court to
reconsider its pre-trial denial of DuPont's
Motion to certify for appeal the denial of its
Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
granted the Motion for Reconsideration and certified
its denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment for
Appeal. The Court specifically stated:
“the Court hereby certifies its April 4, 2014
Ruling denying DuPont's summary judgment motion
for appeal.” The Court's April 4, 2014
Ruling addressed only the Plaintiff's reverse
FCA claim, not the FCA retaliation claim.
interlocutory appeal in this matter, the Fifth Circuit ruled
“It is ordered and adjudged that the denial of summary
judgment for duPont on the reverse-FCA claim is reversed and
remanded. With respect to the retaliation claim, the appeal
is dismissed for lack of appellate
jurisdiction.” On June 15, 2017, this Court entered its
Ruling on Remand which ordered: “For the
reasons articulated by the Court of Appeal, the Court hereby
GRANTS Dupont's Motion for Summary Judgment and the
Plaintiff's reverse FCA claim is hereby DISMISSED with
procedural history makes it clear that only the issue of the
Plaintiff's reverse FCA claim was certified for
interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed and
remanded this Court's denial of DuPont's motion for
summary judgment on the reverse-FCA claim, and for the
reasons articulated by the Court of Appeal this Court
dismissed the Plaintiff's reverse FCA claim with
prejudice. The jury's verdict having been vacated, the
Plaintiff's FCA retaliation claim remains before this
Court. The Court declines DuPont's invitation to sua
sponte enter summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's
FCA retaliation claim.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Correct,
Alter Or Amend Order and Judgment, For Relief from Order and
Judgment, And For Reconsideration is GRANTED.
This Court's Ruling on Remand is hereby
amended to clarify that Plaintiff's retaliation claim
remains pending before the Court.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to the remaining claim,
any Dispositive Motions shall be filed on or before November
15, 2017. Opposition to any motion shall be filed within 21
days from the filing of the motion. The mover may file a
reply brief, without the necessity of seeking leave, within
14 days of the filing of the opposition and such shall be
limited to a total of 10 pages.