United States ex rel. Kurt Bunk v. Gosselin World Wide Moving

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 8, 2014
• Docket: 12-1369
• Status: Published

Opinion

Filed: January 8, 2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1369 (1:02-cv-01168-AJT-TRJ)

UNITED STATES ex rel. KURT BUNK; UNITED STATES ex rel. RAY AMMONS,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor/Plaintiff – Intervenor,

UNITED STATES ex rel. DANIEL HEUSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING, N.V.; GOSSELIN GROUP N.V.; MARC SMET,

Defendants – Appellees,

BIRKART GLOBISTICS GMBH & CO. LOGISTIK UND SERVICE KG; THE PASHA GROUP; ITO MOBEL TRANSPORT GMBH; ANDREAS CHRIST SPEDITION & MOBELTRANSPORT GMBH; JOHN DOES 1-100; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL; DOE DEFENDANTS; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL; ALLIED FREIGHT FORWARDERS; NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; GLOBAL WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED; AIR LAND FORWARDERS SUDDATH; COVAN INTERNATIONAL; JET FORWARDING INCORPORATED; ARPIN INTERNATIONAL; BIRKART GLOBISTICS AG; THIEL LOGISTIK AG, a/k/a Logwin AG; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA-SKS KURT SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE GMBH & CO., KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. KG; M.T.S. HOLDING & VERWALTUNGS GMBH, d/b/a M.T.S. Gruppe; ANDREAS CHRIST GMBH; MICHAEL VILLINGER; ERWIN WEYAND; NICODEMUS GOSSELIN; DIETER SCHMEKEL; HORST BAUR; KURT SCHAFER; MARTINA SCHAFER; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS; BIRKART VERMOGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH; LOGWIN AIR + OCEAN DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; LOGWIN HOLDING DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; JURGEN GRAF; MISSY DONNELLY; GEORGE PASHA; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SHIPPING INCORPORATED; CARTWRIGHT INTERNATIONAL VAN LINES INCORPORATED; JIM HAHN; INTERNATIONAL SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED; GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING GMBH;VIKTORIA INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION;GOVERNMENT LOGISTICS N.V.; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA,

Amici Supporting Appellees,

TAXPAYERS AGAINST FRAUD EDUCATION FUND,

Amicus Supporting Appellants.

No. 12-1417 (1:02-cv-01168-AJT-TRJ)

UNITED STATES ex rel. KURT BUNK; UNITED STATES ex rel. RAY AMMONS,

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

Intervenor/Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. 2 GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING, N.V.; GOSSELIN GROUP N.V.; MARC SMET,

Defendants – Appellants,

VIKTORIA INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION; GOVERNMENT LOGISTICS N.V.; BIRKART GLOBISTICS GMBH & CO. LOGISTIK UND SERVICE KG; THE PASHA GROUP; ITO MOBEL TRANSPORT GMBH; ANDREAS CHRIST SPEDITION & MOBELTRANSPORT GMBH; JOHN DOES 1-100; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL; DOE DEFENDANTS; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL; ALLIED FREIGHT FORWARDERS; NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; GLOBAL WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED; AIR LAND FORWARDERS SUDDATH; COVAN INTERNATIONAL; JET FORWARDING INCORPORATED; ARPIN INTERNATIONAL; BIRKART GLOBISTICS AG; THIEL LOGISTIK AG, a/k/a Logwin AG; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA-SKS KURT SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE GMBH & CO., KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION KG; M.T.S. HOLDING & VERWALTUNGS GMBH, d/b/a M.T.S. Gruppe; ANDREAS CHRIST GMBH; MICHAEL VILLINGER; ERWIN WEYAND; NICODEMUS GOSSELIN; DIETER SCHMEKEL; JURGEN GRAF; HORST BAUR; KURT SCHAFER; MARTINA SCHAFER; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS; BIRKART VERMOGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH; LOGWIN AIR + OCEAN DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; LOGWIN HOLDING DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; MISSY DONNELLY; GEORGE PASHA; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SHIPPING INCORPORATED; CARTWRIGHT INTERNATIONAL VAN LINES INCORPORATED; JIM HAHN; INTERNATIONAL SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING GMBH,

---------------------------------------------

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA,

Amici Supporting Appellants,

Amicus Supporting Appellees.

3 No. 12-1494 (1:02-cv-01168-AJT-TRJ)

Intervenor/Plaintiff – Appellant,

UNITED STATES ex rel. DANIEL HEUSER; UNITED STATES ex rel. KURT BUNK; UNITED STATES ex rel. RAY AMMONS,

Plaintiffs,

GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING, N.V.; GOSSELIN GROUP N.V.; MARC SMET,

BIRKART GLOBISTICS GMBH & CO. LOGISTIK UND SERVICE KG; THE PASHA GROUP; ITO MOBEL TRANSPORT GMBH; ANDREAS CHRIST SPEDITION & MOBELTRANSPORT GMBH; JOHN DOES 1-100; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL; DOE DEFENDANTS; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL; ALLIED FREIGHT FORWARDERS; NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; GLOBAL WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED; AIR LAND FORWARDERS SUDDATH; COVAN INTERNATIONAL; JET FORWARDING INCORPORATED; ARPIN INTERNATIONAL; BIRKART GLOBISTICS AG; THIEL LOGISTIK AG, a/k/a Logwin AG; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA-SKS KURT SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE GMBH & CO., KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION KG; M.T.S. HOLDING & VERWALTUNGS GMBH, d/b/a M.T.S. Gruppe; ANDREAS CHRIST GMBH; MICHAEL VILLINGER; ERWIN WEYAND; NICODEMUS GOSSELIN; DIETER SCHMEKEL; JURGEN GRAF; HORST BAUR; KURT SCHAFER; MARTINA SCHAFER; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS; BIRKART VERMOGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH; LOGWIN AIR + OCEAN DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; LOGWIN HOLDING DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; MISSY DONNELLY; GEORGE PASHA; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SHIPPING INCORPORATED; CARTWRIGHT INTERNATIONAL VAN LINES INCORPORATED; JIM HAHN; INTERNATIONAL SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; GOSSELIN

4 WORLD WIDE MOVING GMBH; GOVERNMENT LOGISTICS N.V.; VIKTORIA INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION,

-------------------------------------------

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA,

Amicus Supporting Appellant.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed December 19, 2013,

as follows:

On page 6, attorney information section, line 3, the

name “Michael L. Woolley” is corrected to read “Michelle L.

Woolley.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk

5 PUBLISHED

No. 12-1369

UNITED STATES ex rel. KURT BUNK; UNITED STATES ex rel. RAY AMMONS,

GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING, N.V.; GOSSELIN GROUP N.V.; MARC SMET,

BIRKART GLOBISTICS GMBH & CO. LOGISTIK UND SERVICE KG; THE PASHA GROUP; ITO MOBEL TRANSPORT GMBH; ANDREAS CHRIST SPEDITION & MOBELTRANSPORT GMBH; JOHN DOES 1-100; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL; DOE DEFENDANTS; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL; ALLIED FREIGHT FORWARDERS; NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; GLOBAL WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED; AIR LAND FORWARDERS SUDDATH; COVAN INTERNATIONAL; JET FORWARDING INCORPORATED; ARPIN INTERNATIONAL; BIRKART GLOBISTICS AG; THIEL LOGISTIK AG, a/k/a Logwin AG; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA-SKS KURT SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE GMBH & CO., KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. KG; M.T.S. HOLDING & VERWALTUNGS GMBH, d/b/a M.T.S. Gruppe; ANDREAS CHRIST GMBH; MICHAEL VILLINGER; ERWIN WEYAND; NICODEMUS GOSSELIN; DIETER SCHMEKEL; HORST BAUR; KURT SCHAFER; MARTINA SCHAFER; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS; BIRKART VERMOGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH; LOGWIN AIR + OCEAN DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; LOGWIN HOLDING DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; JURGEN GRAF; MISSY DONNELLY; GEORGE PASHA; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SHIPPING INCORPORATED; CARTWRIGHT INTERNATIONAL VAN LINES INCORPORATED; JIM HAHN; INTERNATIONAL SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED; GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING GMBH;VIKTORIA INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION;GOVERNMENT LOGISTICS N.V.; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA,

No. 12-1417

UNITED STATES ex rel. KURT BUNK; UNITED STATES ex rel. RAY AMMONS,

2 UNITED STATES ex rel. DANIEL HEUSER,

GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING, N.V.; GOSSELIN GROUP N.V.; MARC SMET,

VIKTORIA INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION; GOVERNMENT LOGISTICS N.V.; BIRKART GLOBISTICS GMBH & CO. LOGISTIK UND SERVICE KG; THE PASHA GROUP; ITO MOBEL TRANSPORT GMBH; ANDREAS CHRIST SPEDITION & MOBELTRANSPORT GMBH; JOHN DOES 1-100; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL; DOE DEFENDANTS; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL; ALLIED FREIGHT FORWARDERS; NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; GLOBAL WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED; AIR LAND FORWARDERS SUDDATH; COVAN INTERNATIONAL; JET FORWARDING INCORPORATED; ARPIN INTERNATIONAL; BIRKART GLOBISTICS AG; THIEL LOGISTIK AG, a/k/a Logwin AG; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA-SKS KURT SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE GMBH & CO., KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION KG; M.T.S. HOLDING & VERWALTUNGS GMBH, d/b/a M.T.S. Gruppe; ANDREAS CHRIST GMBH; MICHAEL VILLINGER; ERWIN WEYAND; NICODEMUS GOSSELIN; DIETER SCHMEKEL; JURGEN GRAF; HORST BAUR; KURT SCHAFER; MARTINA SCHAFER; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS; BIRKART VERMOGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH; LOGWIN AIR + OCEAN DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; LOGWIN HOLDING DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; MISSY DONNELLY; GEORGE PASHA; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SHIPPING INCORPORATED; CARTWRIGHT INTERNATIONAL VAN LINES INCORPORATED; JIM HAHN; INTERNATIONAL SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING GMBH,

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA,

3 TAXPAYERS AGAINST FRAUD EDUCATION FUND,

No. 12-1494

UNITED STATES ex rel. DANIEL HEUSER; UNITED STATES ex rel. KURT BUNK; UNITED STATES ex rel. RAY AMMONS,

GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING, N.V.; GOSSELIN GROUP N.V.; MARC SMET,

BIRKART GLOBISTICS GMBH & CO. LOGISTIK UND SERVICE KG; THE PASHA GROUP; ITO MOBEL TRANSPORT GMBH; ANDREAS CHRIST SPEDITION & MOBELTRANSPORT GMBH; JOHN DOES 1-100; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL; DOE DEFENDANTS; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL; ALLIED FREIGHT FORWARDERS; NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; GLOBAL WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED; AIR LAND FORWARDERS SUDDATH; COVAN INTERNATIONAL; JET FORWARDING INCORPORATED; ARPIN INTERNATIONAL; BIRKART GLOBISTICS AG; THIEL LOGISTIK AG, a/k/a Logwin AG; VIKTORIA SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION GMBH; VIKTORIA-SKS KURT SCHAFER INTERNATIONALE GMBH & CO., KG; GILLEN & GARCON GMBH & CO. INTERNATIONALE SPEDITION KG; M.T.S. HOLDING & VERWALTUNGS GMBH, d/b/a M.T.S. Gruppe; ANDREAS CHRIST GMBH; MICHAEL VILLINGER; ERWIN WEYAND; NICODEMUS GOSSELIN; DIETER SCHMEKEL; JURGEN GRAF; HORST BAUR; KURT SCHAFER; MARTINA SCHAFER; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS; BIRKART VERMOGENSVERWALTUNG GMBH; LOGWIN AIR + OCEAN DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; LOGWIN HOLDING

4 DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; MISSY DONNELLY; GEORGE PASHA; AMERICAN MOPAC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN SHIPPING INCORPORATED; CARTWRIGHT INTERNATIONAL VAN LINES INCORPORATED; JIM HAHN; INTERNATIONAL SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED; GATEWAYS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING GMBH; GOVERNMENT LOGISTICS N.V.; VIKTORIA INTERNATIONAL SPEDITION,

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:02-cv-01168-AJT-TRJ)

Argued: May 14, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

No. 12-1417 affirmed; No. 12-1369 affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions; and No. 12-1494 vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Thacker joined. Judge Shedd wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

ARGUED: Michael T. Anderson, MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC, for United States ex rel. Kurt Bunk, United States ex rel. Ray Ammons, and United States ex rel. Daniel Heuser. Kerri L. Ruttenberg, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., Gosselin Group N.V., and Marc Smet. Jeffrey Clair, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor.

5 ON BRIEF: Richard E. Greenberg, John E. Petite, GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C., St. Louis, Missouri; Ann Lugbill, Mark Hanna, Michelle L. Woolley, MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC, Washington, D.C., for United States ex rel. Kurt Bunk, United States ex rel. Ray Ammons, and United States ex rel. Daniel Heuser. Shay Dvoretzky, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., Gosselin Group N.V., and Marc Smet. James M. Spears, Melissa B. Kimmel, PHRMA, Washington, D.C.; David W. Ogden, Jonathan G. Cedarbaum, Nicole Ries Fox, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Washington, D.C., for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Robin S. Conrad, Rachel Brand, NATIONAL CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, INC., Washington, D.C.; M. Miller Baker, McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, Washington, D.C.; Joshua Buchman, Peter Schutzel, McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Kristin L. Amerling, Cleveland Lawrence III, TAXPAYERS AGAINST FRAUD EDUCATION FUND, Washington, D.C.; Colette G. Matzzie, Claire M. Sylvia, PHILLIPS & COHEN, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michael S. Raab, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor.

6 KING, Circuit Judge:

These appeals and cross-appeal are taken from final

judgments, entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b), in a pair of qui tam actions consolidated for

litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. By its Order of

February 14, 2012, the district court: (1) assessed a single

civil penalty in the sum of $5,500 in favor of the United

States, intervening in substitution of relator Ray Ammons, as to

a single portion of its claim pursuant to the False Claims Act

(the “FCA”), which it alleged against defendants Gosselin

Worldwide Moving, N.V., Gosselin Group N.V., and the latter’s

CEO, Marc Smet (collectively, “Gosselin” or the “company”); (2)

decreed judgment for Gosselin on the remainder of the FCA claim,

as well as common law claims asserted by the government in the

same action; (3) granted judgment as to liability with respect

to a single FCA claim alleged by relator Kurt Bunk and against

Gosselin in the second action; but (4) denied Bunk recovery of

civil penalties on that claim.

The primary issue before us is whether the district court

erred in determining that, concerning 9,136 false invoices at

the heart of Bunk’s claim, any award under the FCA must

necessarily exceed more than $50 million. The court ruled that

such an assessment would contravene the Excessive Fines Clause

of the Eighth Amendment, and it thus awarded nothing. We must

7 also decide whether, as to the larger portion of the

government’s FCA claim on which Gosselin prevailed, the court

properly declared the company immune under the Shipping Act.

Gosselin, for its part, urges on cross-appeal that Bunk’s

election to seek civil penalties to the exclusion of actual

damages deprives him of standing to maintain any recovery — even

one consistent with the Eighth Amendment.

We conclude that Bunk possessed standing to sue for civil

penalties while bypassing the prospect of a damages award, and

we thus affirm the district court’s judgment in his favor. To

the extent, however, that the court denied Bunk recovery of any

penalties, we reverse and remand for entry of his requested

award of $24 million, an amount that we deem to be consistent

with the Constitution. Finally, we are of the opinion that the

Shipping Act confers no immunity upon Gosselin for any part of

the government’s FCA claim; we therefore vacate the contrary

ruling in favor of Gosselin and remand the misadjudicated

portion of the claim for further proceedings.

I.

A.

1.

An army may march on its stomach, but when a fighting force

is deployed to a foreign front, familiar furnishings also serve

8 to fuel the foray. The Department of Defense (the “DOD”) seeks

to provide its armed military forces and civilian personnel with

the orderly and efficient transport of their goods and effects

across the Atlantic, point to point within Europe, and back home

again. The DOD thus instituted the International Through

Government Bill of Lading program (the “ITGBL program”) to

govern transoceanic moves, while relying on the Direct

Procurement Method (the “DPM”) to contract for transport

strictly on the European continent. Both methodologies were

administered by the DOD’s Military Traffic Management Command

(the “MTMC”). 1

In the ITGBL program, the MTMC solicited domestic vendors —

often referred to as “freight forwarders” — to bid on one or

more “through rates,” i.e., unitary prices for moving household

goods along shipping channels established between the several

states and the particular European countries in which American

personnel were encamped. Channels were further distinguished

based on which of the respective termini was the origin of the

goods. For example, the Virginia-to-Germany channel was bid

apart from the Germany-to-Virginia channel.

1 The MTMC is now called the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, or the SDDC.

9 The successful bidders contracted with the MTMC to supply

door-to-door service, typically consisting of discrete segments:

packing the goods at the origin; land carriage to the ocean

port; origin port services; ocean transport; destination port

services; and carriage overland to the destination, where the

goods were unpacked. Subcontractors, including Gosselin,

provided services in connection with the European segments, and

the prices quoted by those subcontractors were taken into

account by the freight forwarders. The MTMC dealt on an

individual basis with some of these same subcontractors when it

availed itself of the DPM to obtain packing, loading, and

transportation services exclusively within Europe.

On November 14, 2000, Gosselin met in Sonthofen, Germany,

with a number of its industry peers, some that provided services

in multiple European segments and others that were more locally

focused. Together, these entities controlled the lion’s share

of packing and transportation services within Germany. The

meeting participants agreed to charge a non-negotiable minimum

price for these local services, which would also be incorporated

into the fixed “landed rate” quoted to the freight forwarders

for servicing multiple segments. Apart from its intended effect

upon the ITGBL program, the Sonthofen meeting and resultant

agreement arguably served as a catalyst with respect to an

ongoing DPM scheme. Pursuant to that scheme, Gosselin was

10 awarded a contract, effective May 1, 2001, after colluding with

its fellow bidders to artificially inflate the packing and

loading component of the submitted bids. Thereafter, Gosselin

subcontracted much of the work, in predetermined allocations, to

its supposed competitors.

Despite the efforts of Gosselin and its Sonthofen cohorts,

freight forwarder Covan International, Inc., was able to submit,

at initial filing for the ITGBL International Summer 2001

(“IS01”) rate cycle, the low bid on fourteen channels between

Germany and the United States (the “Covan Channels”). In order

to increase the likelihood of obtaining business in those

channels, other freight forwarders such as the Pasha Group, with

which Gosselin had a continuing relationship, would have been

compelled to match Covan’s prime through rate. Instead,

Gosselin threatened to withdraw financing from Covan for the

latter’s purchase of thousands of lift vans required to fulfill

its contractual obligations with the MTMC. Consequently, Covan

cancelled its bid, and Gosselin spread the word among the

freight forwarders that each should, during the second (“me-

too”) phase of the bidding, match only the second-lowest bid on

the Covan Channels.

2.

The foregoing scenario was virtually duplicated one year

later, during bidding for the IS02 cycle. On that occasion,

11 Cartwright International Van Lines, Inc., successfully bypassed

the established landed rates to submit the low bid on twelve

Germany-U.S. channels (the “Cartwright Channels”). Gosselin and

Pasha, however, convinced Cartwright to withdraw its bid, and,

after ensuring that local agents would refuse services to anyone

who failed to cooperate, they secured agreements from Pasha’s

fellow freight forwarders to echo the second-lowest bid. For

their actions in connection with the Cartwright Channels, the

Gosselin and Pasha corporate entities were each convicted of

federal criminal offenses in the Eastern District of Virginia.

See United States v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., 411 F.3d

502 (4th Cir. 2005).

B.

The above-described acts gave rise to the underlying civil

actions premised on the FCA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, which,

during the events in question, provided in pertinent part:

(a) Any person who —

(1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government . . . a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

(2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claims paid or approved by the Government; [or]

(3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid[,]

12 is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person[.]

Id. § 3729(a). 2 The FCA confers on private persons, such as Bunk

and Ammons, the authority to “bring a civil action for a

violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United

States Government” in the government’s name. Id. § 3730(b)(1). 3

Bunk sued in the Eastern District of Virginia on August 2,

2002, asserting claims arising from the DPM scheme. Ammons’s

lawsuit, stemming from the machinations relating to the ITGBL

program, was initiated on September 17, 2002, in the Eastern

District of Missouri. The two actions were commenced under seal

against Gosselin and a long list of other defendants, all but

one of which have since been dismissed via settlement and

otherwise. Advancement of both lawsuits was deferred pending

the final outcome of the criminal investigation and resultant

2 The FCA was revised in 2009 to clarify and flesh out many of its provisions. The bases relied on in § 3729(a) to establish Gosselin’s potential liability, however, remained substantially the same. 3 The heading of § 3730(c) refers to a proceeding initiated under the FCA as a “qui tam” action, which has been defined as one “under a statute that allows a private person to sue for a penalty, part of which the government or some specified public institution will receive. They are usually reported as being in the name of the government ex rel. ([i.e.,] on the relation of) the private citizen.” Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 728-29 (2d ed. 1995).

13 proceedings. See § 3730(b)(2), (3) (prescribing that relator’s

complaint “shall be filed in camera, shall remain under seal for

at least 60 days, and shall not be served on the defendant until

the court so orders”). On November 9, 2007, the Ammons matter

was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia, where it

was consolidated with the Bunk proceeding.

Bunk accused Gosselin of participating in an unlawful

conspiracy to defraud the MTMC. His operative Third Amended

Complaint (the “Bunk Complaint”), filed December 8, 2009,

alleged that the conspirators saw their illicit plans bear fruit

when they “falsely represented, directly or indirectly, in

submitting claims for payments that they had not engaged in

common discussions or agreements regarding prices to be offered

and terms and conditions of service,” such terms and conditions

including “allocation of territories or market share . . . for

work performed under . . . [DPM] Government contracts . . . for

transportation of military personal property.” Bunk Complaint

¶ 136. 4

In a similar fashion, the Complaint filed by Ammons (the

“Ammons Complaint”) asserted, inter alia, that Gosselin

facilitated “a bid rigging scheme,” in furtherance of which it

4 The Bunk Complaint is found at J.A. 294-340. (Citations herein to “J.A. ___” refer to the contents of the Joint Appendix filed by the parties to this appeal.)

14 and Pasha illegally “control[led] the access to German freight

agents for [ITGBL] origin and destination services[.]” Ammons

Complaint ¶¶ 50, 61. 5 This monopoly of access, according to

Ammons, enabled the conspirators to “raise and control the

prices for a critical feature of the services necessary to

service the traffic channel between Germany and the United

States.” Id. ¶ 61.

The Ammons Complaint was superseded on July 18, 2008, by

the United States’ Complaint in Intervention (the “Government

Complaint”). See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (“The Government may

elect to intervene and proceed with the action.”). 6 The material

allegations of the Government Complaint echoed those of its

Ammons predecessor, in particular the asserted purpose of the

conspiracy, which “was to obtain collusive, artificially

inflated, and noncompetitive prices for transportation services

performed in connection with [ITGBL] international household

goods shipments.” Government Complaint ¶ 6. To advance the

illicit aims of the conspiracy, according to the government,

Gosselin knowingly “submitted or caused to be submitted false

and inflated claims for payment to the United States . . . and

5 The Ammons Complaint is found at J.A. 243-58. 6 The Government Complaint is found at J.A. 263-93.

15 made, used or caused to be made or used false records or

statements to get those claims paid or approved.” Id. 7

The government thus maintained that Gosselin was liable

under the FCA for treble damages and civil penalties, see

Government Complaint ¶¶ 87-93 (First Cause of Action), or, in

the alternative, for common law fraud, for conspiracy to defraud

the United States, and for unjust enrichment, see id. ¶¶ 94-108

(Second through Fourth Causes of Action). Bunk, for his part,

pleaded various FCA theories of liability against Gosselin and

others. See Bunk Complaint ¶¶ 145-59 (Counts I through V).

Suing in his individual capacity, Bunk joined several additional

claims, including a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim for conspiracy to

7 Though subordinated as a result of the government’s intervention, Ammons remained in the suit, maintaining his status as a party-plaintiff. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(1) (“[T]he person bringing the action . . . shall have the right to continue as a party to the action.”). Bunk’s role was unchanged, as the government declined to intervene in his proceeding. See id. § 3730(c)(3) (“If the government elects not to proceed with the action, the person who initiated the action shall have the right to conduct the action.”). The government’s decisions as to intervention bear not only on who conducts the litigation in the respective matters, but also the eventual award, if any, to the relator. Compare id. § 3730(d)(1) (providing that where “the Government proceeds with an action brought by a person under subsection (b), such person shall . . . receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim”), with id. § 3730(d)(2) (“If the Government does not proceed with an action under this section, the person bringing the action or settling the claim shall receive an amount . . . not less than 25 percent and not more than 30 percent of the proceeds.”).

16 interfere with his civil rights, see id. ¶¶ 160-62 (Count VI),

and state law claims for tortious interference with contractual

relations, for antitrust and related violations, and for

defamation, see id. ¶¶ 163-75 (Counts VII through IX). 8

C.

On the basis of the prior criminal proceedings against

Gosselin, the district court granted partial summary judgment on

liability to the government on its FCA claim insofar as it

pertained to the Cartwright Channels. The remaining issues in

the consolidated matters were tried in Alexandria before a jury,

beginning on July 18, 2011. The government explained in its

opening statement that Gosselin, pursuant to the conspiracy

engendered by the Sonthofen Agreement, engaged in two general

types of wrongful conduct: (1) unlawfully colluding with its

industry cohorts to inflate the landed rate component of ITGBL

bids involving all German channels, which caused those bids as a

whole — and the resultant DOD payments — to be higher than they

would have been absent such collusion (the “price-fixing”

conduct); and (2) in concert with Pasha and others, improperly

8 Although the government did not intervene in the Bunk proceeding, the district court determined that all of Bunk’s claims had nonetheless been effectively superseded by the Government Complaint, except for Count II of the Bunk Complaint, which sought recovery under the FCA for Gosselin’s actions in connection with the DPM scheme. The court’s ruling in that regard has not been appealed.

17 influencing Covan and Cartwright to withdraw their initial low

bids in the IS01 and IS02 cycles, respectively, and dissuading

its competitors from matching the Covan and Cartwright bids in

the affected channels (the “bid-rigging” conduct). See

Transcript of Trial, July 18, 2011, at 54-58. For these

asserted misdeeds, the government sought both categories of

redress permitted by § 3729(a), that is, a fixed civil penalty

for each false claim, plus three times the amount of actual

damages it had sustained. Bunk, by contrast, chose to forgo

proof of damages, suing only for civil penalties.

At the close of the government’s case-in-chief, on July 28,

2011, the district court granted in part Gosselin’s motion for

judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the company was

entitled to immunity under the Shipping Act, and it therefore

could not be held accountable under the FCA for its price-fixing

conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). That conduct, the court

explained, was the only basis for imposing liability on Gosselin

for the inflated landed rate affecting all ITGBL channels

starting and ending in Germany, and not merely the Covan and

Cartwright Channels that were the sole bid-rigging targets. The

court likewise awarded judgment to Gosselin on the alternative,

common law claims, with the result that the only portion of the

government’s case permitted to proceed was its FCA claim, and

18 that only insofar as it related to Gosselin’s bid-rigging

conduct directed at Covan and Cartwright.

Conversely, the district court denied Gosselin’s motion for

judgment as a matter of law with respect to Bunk’s claim

premised on the DPM scheme. The court explained that the

conduct engendering FCA liability as to that claim was not

grounded in immunized price-fixing, but instead manifested in

the subsequent Certificate of Independent Price Determination

(the “CIPD”) filed by Gosselin. The CIPD was designed to

affirmatively assure the MTMC that the successful DPM contractor

had not discussed pricing or soliciting strategy with other

potential suppliers. Bunk had adduced evidence at trial, the

court recalled, that Gosselin had met with its competitors “and

agreed on prices that would be charged and who would service

territories regardless of who was awarded the contract.”

Transcript of Trial, July 28, 2011, at 1059. That evidence

created “a triable issue for the jury” as to whether Gosselin

“acted in a way inconsistent with its certification,” and,

assuming that the CIPD was false, “whether it was a material

misstatement and whether [it was made] knowingly.” Id. at 1059-

60.

Gosselin proceeded with its defense, followed by rebuttal

from Bunk and from the government. At the conclusion of all the

evidence, the jury was instructed by the district court, heard

19 the parties’ closing arguments, and retired to consider its

verdict. On August 4, 2011, after about nine hours of

deliberations over two days, the jury returned a verdict in

favor of Gosselin as to that portion of the government’s FCA

claim stemming from the Covan Channels. In regard to the

Cartwright portion of the FCA claim, for which the district

court had previously ruled Gosselin liable as a matter of law,

the jury found that the government had proved 4,351 instances of

false or fraudulent claims. Finally, the jury found Gosselin

culpable under the FCA for its role in the DPM scheme, as set

forth in Count II of the Bunk Complaint.

D.

Through its memorandum opinion of October 19, 2011, the

district court disposed of various post-trial motions filed by

the parties. First, the court deemed the evidence insufficient

to support the jury’s finding of 4,351 false claims in

connection with the Cartwright Channels; it thus granted

Gosselin partial judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively,

a new trial on the civil penalties remedy pertaining to the

government’s First Cause of Action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

50(c)(1). We characterize the judgment as “partial” because the

district court declined to decree that the government recover

nothing. To the contrary, in line with its prior ruling

20 regarding the Cartwright Channels, the court entered judgment

for the United States in the sum of $5,500. The amount of the

judgment reflects the court’s conclusion that the whole of

Gosselin’s bid-rigging misconduct established nothing more than

a baseline false claim, for which the government — in the

absence of more sophisticated proof — was entitled to receive

only a single civil penalty. 9

Moving on to consider the damages remedy, the district

court observed that the government had collected approximately

$14 million from settling codefendants. That amount was far in

excess of the presumptive damages, i.e., the $865,000 that

Gosselin paid as restitution in the criminal proceedings, such

liability under the FCA being increased to $2,595,000 upon

application of the trebling modifier. The court thus decided

that Gosselin was entitled to a full offset, with no damages

remaining payable. Lastly, the court denied Gosselin’s motion

for judgment as a matter of law with respect to Count II of the

Bunk Complaint and held Gosselin liable for 9,136 false claims,

9 See United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 352 F.3d 908, 920 (4th Cir. 2003) (ascertaining defendant liable for twenty-six false claims, consisting of initial fraudulent certification plus twenty-five resultant invoices). The government has not appealed the district court’s Rule 50(c) determination as to the number of Cartwright Channel claims.

21 corresponding to the number of invoices stipulated by the

parties to have been submitted under the DPM contract.

It remained for the district court to calculate the

appropriate civil penalties for the Bunk false claims. Treating

each of the 9,136 claims as a discrete basis for liability under

§ 3729(a), imposition of no more than the statutory minimum of

$5,500 would have resulted in a cumulative penalty just in

excess of $50 million ($50,248,000). 10 Gosselin contended that a

multi-million-dollar award would be grossly out of proportion to

its misconduct, and thus in contravention of the constitutional

proscription against excessive fines. See U.S. Const. amend.

XIII (“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines

imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”).

The district court agreed, and by memorandum opinion of

February 14, 2012, expressed its view that the relatively

isolated harm caused by the DPM scheme, under which the

government paid a total of approximately $3.3 million for the

10 Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(a)(9), persons adjudged liable under the FCA are, as of September 29, 1999, subject to increased civil penalties amounting to a minimum of $5,500 and a maximum of $11,000. See Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-410, § 535, 104 Stat. 890 (1990), as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 131 (1996) (directing that agency heads adjust and publish via regulation certain civil penalties).

22 packing and loading line item, could not justify a $50 million

penalty. Concluding that it was unauthorized by the FCA to

award less than the $5,500 minimum per claim, and, further, that

each of the 9,136 claims required an award, the court rejected

Bunk’s proposal, in consultation with the government, to accept

$24 million in settlement of the judgment. Indeed, the court

concluded in the alternative that, under the circumstances, any

penalty in excess of $1.5 million would be constitutionally

excessive, and in the event the statute permitted an assessment

of less than $50,248,000, it would award $500,000.

The district court directed the entry of final judgment as

to the claims set forth in the operative complaints against

Gosselin. 11 Encapsulating the various jury findings and legal

rulings set forth above, the court ordered:

(1) judgment in favor of the Plaintiff the United States of America and against Defendants [Gosselin],

11 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (instructing that “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties . . . if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay”). The court deferred decision on the relators’ claims for a percentage of the government’s recovery, together with their requests for FCA attorney fees from Gosselin, pending final disposition of this appeal. Also left pending is the fate of the lone remaining defendant in the case, Government Logistics, N.V., which was alleged liable as a successor to Gosselin. The court denied the parties’ cross- motions for summary judgment as to the successor liability question, holding it over for eventual determination by trial.

23 jointly and severally, in the amount of Five Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($5,500), on the First Cause of Action in the [Government] Complaint . . . ; (2) judgment in favor of Defendants [Gosselin] and against the Plaintiff the United States of America on the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action in the [Government] Complaint . . . ; (3) judgment in favor of [Bunk] and against the Defendants [Gosselin] as to liability on Count II of the [Bunk] Complaint; and (4) judgment in favor of Defendants [Gosselin] and against the United States of America and [Bunk] as to civil penalties on Count II of the [Bunk] Complaint.

J.A. 1621.

By notice timely filed on March 13, 2012, Bunk and Ammons

jointly appealed the district court’s Rule 54(b) judgment (No.

12-1369). Thereafter, on March 27, 2012, Gosselin cross-

appealed (No. 12-1417). The government noticed its appeal (No.

12-1494) on April 13, 2012. 12 We possess jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II.

Intricate issues of law underlie the judgment below and

permeate these several appeals. Most of the issues concern the

construction and application of federal statutes in a fashion

12 In the typical civil case, a party seeking to appeal must file notice thereof in the district court “within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If, however, “one of the parties is . . . the United States,” or an agency or official representative thereof, “any party” to the litigation may appeal within 60 days following the entry of the judgment or order at issue. Id. 4(a)(1)(B).

24 consistent with the Constitution. These legal issues were, with

certain exceptions identified below, considered and decided in

the first instance by the district court, whose rulings thereon

we review de novo. See United States v. Under Seal, 709 F.3d

257, 261 (4th Cir. 2013) (deeming questions of statutory

interpretation and constitutional challenges subject to de novo

review).

III.

Gosselin suggests that Bunk lacks standing to sue, thereby

challenging the jurisdiction of the federal courts as to that

portion of the consolidated litigation in which the government

has not intervened. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 (limiting

judicial power of United States solely to adjudication of cases

and controversies). We thus turn our attention at the outset to

Gosselin’s cross-appeal. See United States v. Day, 700 F.3d

713, 721 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[C]ourts must resolve jurisdictional

Article III standing issues before proceeding to consider the

merits of a claim.”). According to Gosselin, Bunk’s decision to

bypass proof of actual damages and instead seek only civil

penalties demonstrates that he suffered no injury in fact caused

by Gosselin, such being an essential component of standing. See

25 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)

(observing that “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing

contains three elements,” i.e., injury in fact, traceability of

injury to defendant’s conduct, and redressability); accord Vt.

Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529

U.S. 765, 771 (2000).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vermont Agency is

dispositive of the question. Therein, Justice Scalia, writing

for the Court, reiterated that “[a]n interest unrelated to

injury in fact is insufficient to give a plaintiff standing.”

529 U.S. at 772. The Court nevertheless instructed “that

adequate basis for the relator’s suit . . . is to be found in

the doctrine that the assignee of a claim has standing to assert

the injury in fact suffered by the assignor.” Id. at 773. The

relator provisions of the FCA suffice in that regard, the Court

reasoned, insofar as they occasion a “partial assignment of the

Government’s damages claim.” Id. This assignment in part,

especially when viewed in the context of the long tradition of

qui tam actions — originating in England about 500 years before

the ratification of the Constitution — see id. at 774-75,

26 “leaves no room for doubt that a qui tam relator under the FCA

has Article III standing.” Id. at 778. 13

Gosselin, however, seizes upon the Supreme Court’s

characterization of an FCA action as alleging both an “injury to

[the government’s] sovereignty arising from violation of its

laws” and a “proprietary injury resulting from the alleged

fraud,” 529 U.S. at 771, asserting that the civil penalties

provision redresses strictly the former, with damages payable

dollar for dollar to remedy the latter. Gosselin suggests that

only the proprietary injury is an injury in fact for standing

purposes, and it relies for support on the Vermont Agency

language quoted in the preceding paragraph, pointing out that

Justice Scalia spoke only of the FCA assigning the “damages

claim” on behalf of the government. Thus, the argument goes,

Bunk’s election to forgo proof of damages and pursue penalties

solely for the government’s sovereignty injury — purportedly

non-assignable — strips him of standing to maintain suit and

thereby moots his portion of the case. See Arizonans for

Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997)

13 The Supreme Court’s invocation of the principle of assignment to establish relators’ standing under the FCA is sufficient to distinguish Lujan and analogous authorities relied on by Gosselin, in which plaintiffs suing to vindicate exclusively their own rights were required to have themselves sustained a palpable injury in fact.

27 (“Mootness has been described as the doctrine of standing set in

a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must

commence at the outset of the litigation . . . must continue

throughout its existence.” (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted)).

We are scarcely convinced that the Supreme Court in Vermont

Agency would have embarked by mere implication on the novel

dissection urged by Gosselin, without so much as a nod that it

was breaking new ground. The judgment entered below,

unchallenged on its merits, confirms that the government

sustained injury by virtue of Gosselin’s conduct, and it is “the

United States’ injury in fact,” without reference to the source

of that injury, that the Court has said “suffices to confer

standing” on FCA relators like Bunk, who is not otherwise

alleged unqualified. See Vermont Agency, 529 U.S. at 774. That

Bunk made a tactical decision during the course of litigation to

pursue only civil penalties altered in no material way the

fundamental legal relationship among him as plaintiff and

assignee, Gosselin as defendant and tortfeasor, and the

government as victim and assignor.

Moreover, in documenting the use of qui tam actions over

the centuries to buttress the concept of relator standing, the

Vermont Agency Court discussed so-called “informer” statutes

that had been enacted in England and, later, in the American

28 colonies. These statutes, designed to redress a host of wrongs

such as piracy, privateering, and horse thievery, “allowed

informers to obtain a portion of the penalty as a bounty for

their information, even if they had not suffered an injury

themselves.” See 529 U.S. at 775-77 & nn. 6-7. We think it

highly unlikely that the Court would have relied on the informer

statutes to reach the result it did in Vermont Agency had it

intended future relators, such as Bunk, seeking precisely the

same sorts of penalty bounties, to be without standing to sue.

Successful FCA relators can and do recover both damages and

civil penalties. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (specifying

defendant’s liability “for a civil penalty . . . plus 3 times

the amount of damages” sustained by the government (emphasis

added)). The two remedies were thus designed to be unitary, or

at least complementary. See United States ex rel. Marcus v.

Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 551-52 (1943) (ascertaining that dual remedy

provisions facilitate the “chief purpose” of the FCA to ensure

“that the government would be made completely whole,” and

acknowledging the problem Congress confronted in “choosing a

proper specific sum which would give full restitution”).

Exemplifying the intended synergy, the penalty provision

fulfills a function similar to that of the damages multiplier.

Cf. United States v. Bornstein, 423 U.S. 303, 315 (1976)

(touting usefulness of multiplier “to compensate the Government

29 completely for the costs, delays, and inconvenience occasioned

by fraudulent claims”). As the court of appeals emphasized in

United States ex rel. Main v. Oakland City University, 426 F.3d

914, 917 (7th Cir. 2005), the FCA “provides for penalties even

if (indeed, especially if) actual loss is hard to quantify.”

The practical integration of the remedial provisions

strongly suggests that they should not be evaluated in isolation

for standing purposes. This seems all the more so when one also

considers the similar integration between FCA relators and the

government; the statute provides that both share in the ultimate

recovery regardless of which directs the litigation. To deny a

relator its bounty on the ground that it cannot pursue penalties

alone would be to deny the United States due recompense, or, in

the alternative, to deprive the government of its choice to

forgo intervention. We decline Gosselin’s invitation to

interpret the FCA in a manner that disrupts the statute’s

careful design. In holding that relators seeking solely civil

penalties enjoy standing to sue, we find ourselves in agreement

with the two other circuits that have decided the issue. See

United States ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 282 F.3d

787, 804 (10th Cir. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 549 U.S. 457,

479 (2007); Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 252 F.3d 749,

752 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

30 2.

Gosselin presses on, insisting that if Bunk’s standing

depends on Congress having assigned him the right under the FCA

to seek redress for the government’s sovereign injury, such an

action by the legislative branch contravenes Article II of the

Constitution, specifically the Appointments Clause and the Take

Care Clause. The former confers on the President the exclusive

authority to appoint all “Officers of the United States,” except

those who require “the Advice and Consent of the Senate” or

whose appointment Congress otherwise vests “in the Courts of

Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2,

cl. 2. The latter mandates that the President “take Care that

the Laws be faithfully executed.” Id. art. II, § 3. Gosselin

contends that Congress, through the FCA, has effectively

appointed Bunk an officer of the United States. This alleged

usurpation of the President’s constitutional role, the argument

goes, has further resulted in Bunk impermissibly wielding the

power reserved to the executive to penalize Gosselin’s violation

of federal law.

Being derivative of the failed threshold assault on relator

standing pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, the more

nuanced Article II attacks on the FCA were purposely and

pointedly left unresolved by the Supreme Court in Vermont

Agency. Justice Scalia was careful to note that the Court

31 “express[ed] no view” on the constitutionality of the FCA under

the Appointments and Take Care Clauses, because the statute was

not contested on either of those bases. See 529 U.S. at 778

n.8. Importantly for our purposes, however, the Court

recognized that “the validity of qui tam suits under those

provisions,” in contrast to the standing afforded the relator to

bring suit, was not “a jurisdictional issue” requiring analysis

and decision. Id.

The same is true here. Gosselin’s constitutional

challenges to the FCA are newly raised in its cross-appeal,

having never been presented to the district court for

consideration in the first instance. Although the question of

Bunk’s standing strikes at the heart of federal jurisdiction

limited under Article III to cases and controversies, whether

the FCA contravenes Article II does not.

As one of our esteemed colleagues has aptly observed, “it

remains the law of this circuit that when a party to a civil

action fails to raise a point at trial, that party waives review

of the issue unless there are exceptional or extraordinary

circumstances justifying review.” Corti v. Storage Tech. Corp.,

304 F.3d 336, 343 (4th Cir. 2002) (Niemeyer, J., concurring)

(collecting cases). We discern no compelling reason to depart

from the usual rule in this case. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428

U.S. 106, 121 (1976) (“The matter of what questions may be taken

32 up and resolved for the first time on appeal is one left

primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals.”). The

Vermont Agency Court exercised its discretion to withhold ruling

on the Article II challenges not properly before it, and, under

similar circumstances, we do the same.

We move on to address Bunk’s appeal of the district court’s

ruling that it lacked authorization to enter judgment against

Gosselin on the 9,136 false claims for civil penalties amounting

to less than $50 million and change (insofar as $248,000 can be

considered “change”), notwithstanding that Bunk was willing to

accept a remittitur to $24 million. Bunk suggests that, to the

extent the district court correctly concluded that the Eighth

Amendment is contravened if the full force of the FCA is brought

to bear on Gosselin, the statute can nonetheless be reformed

within constitutional tolerances by imposing a civil penalty on

fewer claims than proved or stipulated; the same result could be

obtained by disregarding the $5,500 floor per claim. In support

of the reformation approach, Bunk points to Ayotte v. Planned

Parenthood of Northern New England, in which the Supreme Court

explained that “when confronting a flaw in a statute, we try to

limit the solution to the problem. We prefer, for example, to

enjoin only the unconstitutional applications of a statute while

33 leaving other applications in force.” 546 U.S. 320, 328-29

(2006). We are content to leave the FCA as it is, however, by

reaching the same result another way.

We begin with the proposition that litigation usually

commences to redress a perceived wrong against one or more

private persons or entities, or the public at large. As a

society, we seek to encourage this structured, civilized form of

dispute resolution, so it makes sense that parties availing

themselves of the courts to sue possess considerable latitude —

so far as may be fair to the defendant — over how the suit

progresses and ultimately culminates. In the normal course, the

plaintiff or prosecutor determines the claims or charges to

bring, how much discovery or investigation is reasonable to

undertake, the evidence and testimony introduced to sustain the

burden of proof, and whether to initiate or accept an offer of

compromise.

The primacy of the complaining party is reflected in the

legal vernacular. We often speak of the civil plaintiff being

the “master of his complaint.” See, e.g., Lincoln Prop. Co. v.

Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 91 (2005) (“In general, the plaintiff is the

master of the complaint and has the option of naming only those

parties the plaintiff chooses to sue.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)); Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932,

937 (4th Cir. 2008) (acknowledging that “plaintiffs, as masters

34 of their complaint, can choose to circumscribe their class

definition” to escape federal jurisdiction under Class Action

Fairness Act); Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 356 (4th

Cir. 2004) (explaining that claim raised in prior proceedings

but not adjudicated was subsequently precluded because plaintiff

was responsible “as the master of her complaint, to make sure

that the district court identified all of her claims”).

Similarly, in the criminal context, it is taken for granted that

prosecutors enjoy substantial discretion with regard to the

persons and offenses they elect to charge. See Bordenkircher v.

Hayes 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978) (“In our system, so long as the

prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused

committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or

not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a

grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.”).

It is hardly surprising, then, that the FCA was crafted in

acknowledgment of the flexibility typically afforded the

government to right a public wrong. At the threshold, the

United States is vested with the discretion to file or forgo

suit. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a) (providing that, after diligent

investigation, “[i]f the Attorney General finds that a person

has violated or is violating section 3729, the Attorney General

may bring a civil action under this section against the person

(emphasis added)). If a relator initiates suit, then the

35 government “may elect to intervene and proceed with the action.”

Id. § 3730(b)(2) (emphasis added). Upon intervention and

notwithstanding the objection of the relator, the government

may, after a hearing before the court, dismiss or settle the

suit, see id. § 3730(c)(2)(A)-(B), prerogatives that, absent

intervention, inhere in either the government or a relator suing

as the government’s assignee.

By requesting the district court to enter judgment for a

reduced amount of $24 million on the claims he brought, Bunk, as

the government’s assignee, was merely exercising his discretion

to attempt to bring the case to a suitable conclusion following

the jury’s verdict in his favor. A dispute can be settled, of

course, at any time before litigation has commenced, during its

pendency, or after it has finished. And settlements often take

the form of a consent judgment. Bunk’s proposal, being

unilateral, was not a settlement. It was, however, doubtlessly

intended to make the prospect of settlement more palatable for

Gosselin, or — failing that immediate resolution — to smooth

Bunk’s path before the district court and on appeal against the

looming Eighth Amendment challenge.

In short, Bunk’s effort at a voluntary remittitur was just

the sort of arrow that a plaintiff is presumed to possess within

his quiver. It must be the rare case indeed where the plaintiff

prevails before a jury, then, under no overt influence from the

36 court or the defendant, elects to take a lesser judgment before

the ink has dried on the verdict form. Nevertheless, we imagine

that the plaintiff’s discretion to willingly do so is virtually

unbounded. In United States v. Mackby, 339 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir.

2003), the district court entered judgment against the defendant

under the FCA for treble damages in excess of $174,000 stemming

from 1459 false claims. Although the defendant was also liable

for civil penalties on each claim, the court, at the

government’s request, assessed the $5,000 minimum on only 111 of

the claims to add $555,000 to the judgment. Neither the court

nor the defendant questioned the government’s discretion to

proceed in such a manner. Accord Peterson v. Weinberger, 508

F.2d 45, 55 (5th Cir. 1975) (approving entry of judgment on

civil penalties for only 50 of 120 false claims “where the

imposition of forfeitures might prove excessive and out of

proportion to the damages sustained by the Government”).

By our observations, we do not mean to imply that a

district court is at the mercy of either the government or a

relator in an FCA proceeding. Quite the opposite is true: the

court remains in firm control of those aspects of the litigation

over which it has always had domain, including without

limitation scheduling and discovery, the admission and exclusion

of evidence, and the conduct of trial. But the court must

permit the government or its assignee the freedom to navigate

37 its FCA claims through the uncertain waters of the Eighth

Amendment.

We reluctantly acknowledge that the perceived tension

between the FCA and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth

Amendment, which so understandably concerned the district court,

is a monster of our own creation. The FCA as enacted could

arguably have been construed as authorizing a total civil

penalty not to exceed $11,000 (in addition to treble damages)

against anyone planning or executing a scheme to defraud the

government. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) (providing that any person

presenting, facilitating through certain means, or conspiring to

present government with a false or fraudulent claim “is liable

to the United States Government for a civil penalty” now ranging

from $5,500 to $11,000 (emphasis added)).

We eschewed such a narrow interpretation, however, in

Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th

Cir. 1999) (“Harrison I”), a relator’s appeal from the district

court’s dismissal order, wherein the defendant was alleged to

have misrepresented costs and withheld disclosures to obtain

subcontracting approval from the government. With respect to

the defendant’s requests for reimbursement of its payments to

the subcontractor, we concluded that the FCA “attaches

liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity . . . but

to the claim for payment.” Harrison I, 176 F.3d at 785

38 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover,

“each [invoice] constitutes a claim under the False Claims Act,”

id. at 792, on the ground that these invoiced “claim[s] for

payment . . . [were] . . . submitted under a contract which was

fraudulently approved,” id. at 793-94. In so ruling, we took

note of substantial amendments to the FCA thirteen years

earlier, reflecting the determination of Congress to “‘enhance

the Government's ability to recover losses sustained as a result

of fraud.’” Id. at 784 (quoting S. Rep. No. 99-345, at 2

(1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266)).

That approach proved just the tonic in the Harrison cases,

where, it would turn out, the defendant was penalized nearly

$200,000 for submitting twenty-five false invoices. See United

States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 352

F.3d 908, 913, 920 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Harrison II”). It was

inevitable, we suppose, in view of the vast number of government

contracts — many of prodigious size and sophistication — that

we would confront FCA actions involving thousands of invoices,

thus exposing culpable defendants to millions of dollars of

liability for civil penalties. We are entirely comfortable with

that proposition. When an enormous public undertaking spawns a

fraud of comparable breadth, the rule set forth in Harrison I

helps to ensure what we reiterate is the primary purpose of the

39 FCA: making the government completely whole. See Harrison II,

352 F.3d at 923 (citing Hess, 317 U.S at 551-52).

The district court’s methodology cannot be said to have

furthered that statutory purpose. Indeed, an award of nothing

at all because the claims were so voluminous provides a perverse

incentive for dishonest contractors to generate as many false

claims as possible, siphoning ever more resources from the

government. Though we agree that the number of false invoices

presented is hardly a perfect indicator of the relative

liability that ought to attach to an FCA defendant, injustice is

avoided in the particular case by the discretion accorded the

government and a relator to accept reduced penalties within

constitutional limits, as ultimately adjudged by the courts.

An important question remains as to whether $24 million is

an excessive fine as applied to Gosselin’s misconduct in

connection with the DPM scheme. According to the Supreme Court,

“[t]he touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the

Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The

amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the

gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” United

States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998). The test is by

no means onerous. A cumulative monetary penalty such as that

imposed under the FCA will violate the Eighth Amendment

40 proscription against excessive fines in the infrequent instance

that it is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of a

defendant’s offense.” Id.

The defendant in Bajakajian, travelling with his family

from the United States to Cyprus, was detained by customs

officials in Los Angeles upon being discovered with cash in his

possession totalling $357,144. The defendant pleaded guilty to

attempting to leave the United States with more than $10,000

without reporting it, see 31 U.S.C. § 5316(a)(1)(A), and the

government sought forfeiture of the entire amount. In reviewing

the judgment of the Ninth Circuit that the government was

entitled to only $15,000, the Supreme Court assessed the gravity

of the defendant’s offense by its nature and the harm it caused.

In that regard, the Court explained that the defendant’s

“crime was solely a reporting offense. It was permissible to

transport the currency out of the country so long as he reported

it.” Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 337. Moreover, the “violation was

unrelated to any other illegal activities. The money was the

proceeds of legal activity and was to be used to repay a lawful

debt.” Id. at 338. Further, the Court observed, the defendant

did “not fit into the class of persons for whom the statute was

principally designed: He is not a money launderer, a drug

trafficker, or a tax evader.” Id. Conviction of the failure-

to-report offense carried a term of imprisonment of no longer

41 than six months and a maximum fine of $5,000, “confirm[ing] a

minimal level of culpability.” See id. at 338-39. Finally, the

resultant harm from the defendant’s failure to report the cash

he was carrying was described as “minimal,” with “no fraud on

the United States, and . . . no loss to the public fisc.” Id.

at 339. The Court thus affirmed the judgment of the court of

appeals, recognizing that the amount sought was “larger than the

$5,000 fine imposed by the District Court by many orders of

magnitude, and it bears no articulable correlation to any injury

suffered by the Government.” Id. at 340.

The circumstances of this appeal could not be more readily

distinguishable from those evaluated by the Supreme Court in

Bajakajian. Signed into law by President Lincoln in the midst

of the Civil War, the FCA was enacted specifically “in response

to overcharges and other abuses by defense contractors.”

Harrison I, 176 F.3d at 784. As a defense contractor, Gosselin

is precisely within the class of wrongdoers contemplated by the

FCA. Gosselin did not commit some sort of technical offense;

its misdeeds were of substance. For analogous misconduct in

connection with the ITGBL program as it pertained to the

Cartwright Channels, Gosselin was convicted of conspiring to

defraud the United States, as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 371, and

of conspiring to restrain trade, in contravention of 15 U.S.C.

42 § 1. Those offenses carry maximum prison terms under the

pertinent statutes of, respectively, five and ten years.

Though Bunk sought no damages, the question of economic

harm to the government arising from the DPM false statements was

fiercely contested before the district court. The court

ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence of any

harm, a notion seemingly inconsistent with Gosselin’s apparent

profit motive in making the statements at issue. The undisputed

evidence revealed a substantial short-term price increase under

the DPM contract for similar services previously provided,

perhaps in excess of $2 million, and there is no doubt that the

government has suffered significant opportunity costs from being

deprived of the use of those funds for more than a decade.

For purposes of our Eighth Amendment analysis, however, the

concept of harm need not be confined strictly to the economic

realm. The prevalence of defense contractor scams, as often

portrayed in the media, shakes the public’s faith in the

government’s competence and may encourage others similarly

situated to act in a like fashion. We made the proper point

more than fifty years ago in Toepleman v. United States:

[N]o proof is required to convince one that to the Government a false claim, successful or not, is always costly. Just as surely, against this loss the Government may protect itself, though the damage be not explicitly or nicely ascertainable. The [FCA] seeks to reimburse the Government for just such losses. For a single false claim[, the civil penalty]

43 would not seem exorbitant. Furthermore, even when multiplied by a plurality of impostures, it still would not appear unreasonable when balanced against the expense of the constant Treasury vigil they necessitate.

263 F.2d 697, 699 (4th Cir. 1959). Thus, to analyze whether a

particular award of civil penalties under the FCA is “grossly”

disproportionate such as to offend the Excessive Fines Clause,

we must consider the award’s deterrent effect on the defendant

and on others perhaps contemplating a related course of

fraudulent conduct.

Under the circumstances before us, we are satisfied that

the entry of judgment on behalf of Bunk for $24 million on the

DPM claim would not constitute an excessive fine under the

Eighth Amendment. That amount, we think, appropriately reflects

the gravity of Gosselin’s offenses and provides the necessary

and appropriate deterrent effect going forward. To the extent

that the district court was of the view that the constitutional

threshold could not exceed $1.5 million, we have reviewed its

decision de novo, see Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 336 & n.10, and

have come to the different conclusion set forth above. 14

14 Gosselin interposes a number of arguments to the effect that, for myriad reasons, Bunk and the government are estopped from advocating for a substantial penalty. See Br. for Defendants-Appellees/Cross Appellants at 36-39, 59-65. We have carefully considered each of these arguments, and we reject them.

44 C.

The government appeals the district court’s Rule 50(a)

determination as to the larger portion of its FCA claim, that

is, those aspects of the claim seeking to hold Gosselin liable

for its price-fixing conduct affecting all channels with a

German terminus. For purposes of this discussion, we exclude

the smaller portion of the FCA claim relating to the Cartwright

Channels, for which the government has received judgment and has

not appealed. See supra note 9. The linchpin of the court’s

decision was a provision of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C.

App. §§ 1701-1719, barring application of the antitrust laws to

“any agreement or activity concerning the foreign inland segment

of through transportation that is part of transportation

provided in a United States import or export trade.” Id.

§ 1706(a)(4). 15 The court concluded that the provision

accurately described Gosselin’s agreements and activity to

inflate the landed rate, reasoning further “that a false claim

under the FCA cannot be predicated on price fixing conduct that

15 The Shipping Act was amended and recodified in 2006, with the result that substantially the same provision now appears at 46 U.S.C. § 40307(a)(5). The referenced exemption applies by its literal terms merely to liability under the antitrust laws, but, strictly for purposes of this decision, we assume that it may also apply to exempt persons from FCA liability.

45 enjoys a statutory immunity from the antitrust laws.” J.A.

1137. 16

In the criminal proceedings pertaining to the Cartwright

Channels, during which Gosselin admitted to similar price

fixing, we rejected the same immunity argument. See United

States v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., 411 F.3d 502, 509-11

(4th Cir. 2005). Mindful of the canon that exemptions from

antitrust liability are to be narrowly construed, our friend

Judge Wilkinson reasoned that because Gosselin’s “collusive

effort was aimed at the entire through transportation market,

rather than just the foreign inland segment, we do not think

that they can claim exemption.” Id. at 510.

Put another way, Gosselin’s price-fixing scheme did not

inflate in isolation merely the landed rate quoted the freight

forwarders; it inflated the all-inclusive through rates that the

freight forwarders were induced to bid (and MTMC was compelled

to pay) on each of the channels between the United States and

Germany. The scheme thus concerned more than just the foreign

16 In deciding the immunity issue, the district court relied in part on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Tucor International, Inc., 189 F.3d 834, 836-38 (9th Cir. 1999), wherein the court of appeals declared the defendants immune from antitrust liability pursuant to § 1706(a)(4). The facts and circumstances surrounding Gosselin’s case are dissimilar to those in Tucor, which, in any event, is not the law of this Circuit.

46 inland segments from which the landed rate was derived. That

the effect may have been more drastic in the Covan and

Cartwright Channels — burdened with the additional encumbrance

of Gosselin’s bid-rigging efforts — is insufficient reason to

segregate the other channels for purposes of the immunity

analysis.

Adhering to our decision in the criminal proceedings, the

district court correctly granted summary judgment against

Gosselin as to liability on that portion of the FCA claim

regarding the Cartwright Channels. The court, however,

incorrectly ruled as a matter of law in Gosselin’s favor on the

company’s price-fixing conduct affecting the remaining German

channels, including the Covan Channels. Gosselin could not have

successfully asserted Shipping Act immunity anew to defeat the

preclusive effect of our prior judgment, and it should not have

been suffered to prevail on the same argument with respect to

the nearly identical circumstances presented by the Covan

Channels, or to the materially similar circumstances common to

all the German channels. The jury should have been allowed to

consider the government’s entire case, but, inasmuch as it was

not so permitted, the verdict in favor of Gosselin must be

vacated as infirm. On remand, the district court shall conduct

further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion, as to

the remainder of the government’s FCA claim.

47 IV.

Pursuant to the foregoing, the judgment of the district

court is affirmed as to Gosselin’s cross appeal. We also affirm

the entry of judgment in favor of Bunk, but we reverse and

remand the court’s entry of no monetary award, instructing it to

amend the judgment to award $24 million. Lastly, we vacate the

court’s judgment in favor of the United States so that it may

conduct further proceedings on what remains of the government’s

FCA claim and reenter judgment as appropriate.

No. 12-1417 AFFIRMED

No. 12-1369 AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

No. 12-1494 VACATED AND REMANDED

48 SHEDD, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in all but Part III-C of the majority opinion. In

my view, the district court correctly determined that Gosselin’s

activity was immunized by the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. App.

§ 1706(a)(4), and I would affirm substantially for the reasons

given by the district court. See United States v. Birkart

Globistics GMBH & Co., No. 1:02cv1168 (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2011).