Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2003, the VA entered into a contract with Reliable for electrical improvements at a VA medical center, requiring installation of three backup generators, “new and of the most suitable grade.” Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.211-5, incorporated by reference, requires that supplies be “new, reconditioned, or remanufactured,” and defines “new” as “composed of previously unused components.” Reliable sub-contracted to Fisk, which contracted with DTE. In 2004, DTE delivered two Cummins Power Generation generators to the construction site. The VA’s senior resident engineer inspected the generators and determined that they were not “new.” He wrote to Reliable, stating: They show a lot of wear and tear including field burns to enlarge mounting holes. Are they new and will you certify them as such? I cannot pay you … without that certification. Fisk and Reliable initially agreed that the generators did not meet the contract specification. After investigation, they concluded that the generators, manufactured in 2000, had been previously purchased by others but never used. Fisk obtained different generators, which were accepted by the VA. In 2007, Reliable submitted a claim, seeking $1,100,000 for additional costs incurred as a result of rejection of the original generators. In 2013, the Board of Contract Appeals denied Reliable’s claim. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the Board erred in its interpretation of the contract. View "Reliable Contracting Grp., LLC v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Lydig Construction was the general contractor on a large public works project. Martinez Steel was the original steel supply subcontractor on the project. Lydig sued Martinez for additional costs Lydig incurred because Martinez failed to timely supply steel for the project; Lydig, with the public agency's approval, had been required to replace Martinez as the steel supplier. Lydig moved for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment and presented the trial court with its business records and declarations from its employees. Martinez opposed Lydig's motion and presented declarations from one of its employees that set forth its contention Lydig owed it for, among other items, steel Martinez had delivered to the project. Martinez filed a cross-complaint in which it alleged claims that, if successful, would entirely offset Lydig's claims against it. The trial court granted Lydig's motion and issued writs of attachment in the amount of $203,315. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Martinez's contentions that its cross-complaint, as a matter of law, prevented the trial court from issuing a writ of attachment against it and that Lydig's application for a writ of attachment was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Lydig Constr., Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp." on Justia Law

The Forest Service awarded EM Logging a timber sale contract for the Kootenai National Forest in Montana. The contract’s load limit clause states that “[a]ll vehicles shall comply with statutory load limits unless a permit from the Forest Service and any necessary State permits are obtained,” the haul route clause states that “[a]ll products removed from Sale Area shall be transported over the designated routes of haul” and a notification clause requires that “Purchaser shall notify Forest Service when a load of products … will be delayed for more than 12 hours in reaching weighing location.” The provision under which the Forest Service terminated the contract refers to: “a pattern of activity that demonstrates flagrant disregard for the terms of this contract.” The Forest Service issued multiple notifications of breach with respect to the clauses, suspended operations, and terminated the contract. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that one instance of route deviation necessitated by illness, one load limit violation, and two instances of delayed notifications. None of the alleged violations independently substantiated the finding of flagrant disregard. Even together, the violations were not substantial evidence of a pattern of activity demonstrating that EM’s actions were in flagrant disregard of the contract. View "EM Logging v. Dep't of Agric." on Justia Law

In 2004, K-Con entered into a contract with the federal government to construct a Coast Guard building in Port Huron Michigan for $582,641. Once K-Con finished, the government imposed liquidated damages of $109,554 for tardiness of 186 days in completion. KCon sued, seeking remission of the liquidated damages on two grounds—that the contract’s liquidated-damages clause was unenforceable and that KCon was entitled to an extension of the completion date. KCon also requested additional compensation based on work performed in response to government requests that K-Con alleges amounted to contract changes. The Court of Federal Claims held that the contract’s liquidated damages clause was enforceable; that K-Con did not comply with the written-notice precondition for invoking the contract clause governing changes; and that K-Con’s claim for an extension on the completion date must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. K-Con failed to comply with the changes clause, and its after-the-fact speculations about what would have happened had it complied do not create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether it should be excused for its failure. View "K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

FTR has constructed buildings for public entities for 15 years. In 1999, FTR submitted the winning bid of $7.345 million to construct a District school. During construction, FTR submitted approximately 150 proposed change orders (PCO). FTR claimed some were necessary because the District’s plans were inadequate or misleading. The District denied most of the PCOs on the grounds that the work was covered under the basic contract, the amounts claimed were excessive, or that a PCO was not timely under the contract. Construction was completed in 2001. Public Contract Code 7107 allows a public entity to withhold funds due a contractor when there are liens on the property or a good faith dispute concerning whether the work was properly performed. The court of appeal held that the trial court properly assessed penalties against District because it did not timely release retained funds; properly rejected the District's action under the False Claims Act, Government Code 12650; and properly assessed prejudgment interest. The court erred in its interpretation of a contract provision imposing time limitations to submit claims for extra work as requiring a showing of prejudice and erred in awarding fees for work not solely related to FTR's section 7107 cause of action. View "FTR Int'l, Inc. v. Rio Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission and Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Association alleged that defendants, who promoted and staged music events at the Coliseum and related venues, paid an employee of the Commission for services related to those music events and that such payments were inappropriate and not disclosed to plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed in part, finding that the plaintiffs adequately stated causes of action under the conflicts of interest prohibition in Government Code section 1090, conspiracy to defraud, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and accounting. The court upheld dismissal of claims of violation of the False Claims Act, fraud, and negligence. View "Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Insomniac, Inc." on Justia Law

The School District entered into a construction contract with Amoroso. Pursuant to Public Contract Code 22300, Amoroso elected to have the retention held in an escrow account in the form of securities. The escrow agreement stated that “District shall have the right to draw upon the securities and/or withdraw amounts from the Escrow Account in event of default by Contractor as determined solely by District.” The District gave written notice of material breach on March 30, 2011, based on Amoroso’s failure to complete, timely or at all, any of the three project phases and requested that Amoroso cure by April 4. Amoroso contested the assertions of material breach by letter dated April 1. The District sent notice of termination on April 18 and filed suit. On April 28, the parties entered into an “Exit and Demobilization Agreement,” “in lieu of any final termination or statement of default under the Contract.” The District sent a letter requesting withdrawal of $3.5 million from the escrow account, attaching its attorney’s memorandum as to why withdrawal was permissible. Amoroso unsuccessfully sought an injunction. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Amoroso’s claim that a public project owner must await judicial resolution of the underlying contract dispute before it can withdraw retention funds. View "Pittsburg Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.J. Amoroso Constr. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Cobra was a prequalified vendor of information technology goods and services to the city. In 1999-2000, Cobra submitted invoices based on invoices submitted by its subcontractor, Monarch. Monarch had not performed the work, but was a sham corporation run by Armstrong, then-manager of information technology for a city agency. The city paid the invoices. After uncovering another scheme involving Armstrong and a different vendor, the city received complaints that Cobra had not paid subcontractors for work for which the city had paid Cobra. Cobra did not submit to an audit request. The City Attorney had represented Cobra on matters including city contracts while in private practice. Although he had personally been screened from matters related to Cobra, the court ordered the city to retain independent counsel, but stayed proceedings pending appeal. The California Supreme Court affirmed the disqualification. A jury returned verdicts against Cobra and rejected all counterclaims. The court of appeal held that Cobra waived appeal of its motion to preclude the city from using evidence procured with the participation of the City Attorney; reversed as to intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the false claims acts; and remanded for a new trial limited to those claims. View "City & Cnty, of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Columbus Cheer Company ("CCC") entered into a rental contract for the use of school facilities. Subsequently, CCC was informed that Columbus Municipal School District ("CMSD") would not honor the contract with CCC. CCC filed a complaint against CMSD. The complaint read in part: "[p]laintiff Columbus Cheer Company is a profit corporation licensed to due [sic] business in the state of Mississippi . . . ." The prayer sought judgment for plaintiff (CCC). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that CCC was an administratively dissolved corporation; therefore, CCC could not have entered into a valid contract with CMSD, and CCC did not possess the requisite legal status to initiate suit. The trial court entered an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. CCC appealed, and the issues on appeal were: (1) whether a dissolved corporation could pursue a legal action; and if not, (2) could the corporation's shareholders pursue the same action in their own name? The Supreme Court answered both questions "no."View "Columbus Cheer Company v. City of Columbus" on Justia Law

The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC) entered into a construction contract with Lewis Walker Roofing (Walker Roofing) to re-roof several buildings at Valdosta State Prison. The Contract contained two “no assignment” clauses, and as a prerequisite to contracting with GDOC, Walker Roofing was required to obtain payment and performance bonds. It obtained such payment and performance bonds from Developers Surety and Indemnity Company. Walker Roofing did not complete its work within the time frame required by the Contract, and GDOC declared Walker Roofing in default. Developers Surety did not notify GDOC within 25 days of receipt of GDOC's notice of default regarding whether it would remedy the default or perform the contract. However, approximately three months after the declaration of default, Developers Surety gave GDOC the option of entering into a contract with another company for the completion of the work. GDOC then contracted with that company to finish the project. Under the payment and performance bonds and prior to Walker Roofing's default, Developers Surety had provided financial assistance to Walker Roofing. Developers Surety filed suit against GDOC for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation under the payment and performance bond it issued to Walker Roofing on behalf of GDOC. GDOC filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court determined that Developers Surety's claims were not barred by sovereign immunity and that GDOC had breached the construction contract as a matter of law. It concluded that GDOC waived its sovereign immunity by entering into the contract with Walker Roofing, and that the doctrine of equitable subrogation gave Developers Surety the ability to file suit against GDOC once it incurred liability and paid the obligations of its principal under the bond. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment to Developers Surety and denied it to GDOC; in the same order, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Developers Surety in the amount equal to the "financial assistance" Developers Surety provided to Walker Roofing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the State’s sovereign immunity was waived for the claim Developers Surety made on its contract with the State. The Supreme Court found that immunity was indeed waived in this instance, and accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Georgia Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co." on Justia Law