US Ex Rel. O'Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

918 F. Supp. 1338 | District Court, E.D. Missouri | 1996

enforcedCited 16 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss False Claims Act allegations and granted government leave to file amended complaint, finding fraud claims involve sufficient particularity and are not barred by judicial estoppel or comity.

Fraud is an integral part of Counts III, IV, and V claims involving fraud.

District Court, E.D. Missouri, 1996

Related Cases

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management District

1996modified

A wastewater district is a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes and a political subdivision entitled to sovereign immunity from tort claims under pre-Pruett Mississippi law.

MCI CONSTRUCTORS, LLC v. City of Greensboro

2010enforced

District court properly confirmed arbitration award finding City entitled to $14.9 million damages; arbitration panel did not exceed its powers and award was not procured by undue means.

Linan-Faye Construction Co., Inc. v. Housing Authority of the City of Camden

1995remanded

District court erred in applying federal common law instead of New Jersey law to interpret the termination for convenience clause, but New Jersey courts would look to federal common law for guidance on this issue.

Blackstone Medical, Inc. D/B/A Orthofix Spinal Implants v. Phoenix Surgicals, LLC

2015enforced

Trial court properly denied motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims where evidence supported jury findings of wrongful termination and waiver of exclusivity provision.

Textron Defense Systems v. Sheila E. Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force

1998enforced

A contractor under a cost-plus-award-fee contract is not entitled to a pro-rata share of unearned award fees upon termination for convenience, as the award fee clause was expressly exempted from the termination clause and the contractor had no reasonable expectation of receiving fees for unperformed work.