United States of America ex rel. Hassan Foreman v. AECOM

Opinion

myYu Teeth ' DOCUMENT TRONICALLY FIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK iLeD: □□□□□□ coud 1a: sett onivacia daunted ATE FILED: □□□□□□

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. HASSAN FOREMAN, 16 Civ. 1960 (LLS) Plaintiff, ORDER

- against - AECOM, AECOM GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., AC FIRST, LLC and AECOM/GSS LTD. d/b/a GLOBAL SOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. Palin te nS Atal ic te a i in Een at The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all Foreman’s claims except the 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a) (1) (A)-(B) claims premised on his labor billing allegations. United States ex rel. Foreman v. AECOM, et al., 19 F.4th 85, 126-7 (2d Cir. 2021). These claims were restored because, in dismissing them “the district court erred in relying on the September 2014 DCAA Report and the documents related to Work Order 6HN26S603914 without first converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at p. 28. As stated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 (d): If, on a motion under Rule 12 (b) (6) or 12 (c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion. Accordingly, the necessary consideration of the September 2014 DCAA Report and the documents related to Work Order 6HN26S603914 requires the conversion of the motion regarding the 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a) (1) (A)-(B) claims premised on the labor billing allegations,

and it is ORDERED that it is so converted and shall be disposed of as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

So Ordered. Dated: New York, New York October ¥Y , 2024

] i / “ = bk tes Stentn LOUIS L. STANTON U.S.D.J.