16 results for 'nos:"Miller Act - Contract"'.
J. Boulware denies the subcontractor's motion for summary judgment. After issues with securing government funds for its work on Nellis Airforce Base, the contractor communicated with the electrical subcontractor regarding tracking of expenses. The subcontractor replied with altered invoices, eventually refusing to endorse a payment check for less than the claimed amount. Many disputes of material fact on fraud and contract claims and counterclaims remain.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Boulware, Filed On: March 31, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv573, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Fraud, Government, Contract
J. Navarro grants the subcontractor's motion for partial summary judgment. The construction company alleges the subcontractor abandoned its contract to construct a temporary phasing facility for the company's renovation of the Air Force base hospital, requiring it to add a second phasing facility. The company's use of the second facility was not reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of the contract. The use of the second facility does not reasonably arise from the breach itself, as it deviated from what the subcontractor was obligated to provide.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Navarro , Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv790, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Construction, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Boardman denies a subcontractor’s motion to dismiss a surety’s third-party complaint in this Miller Act claim for contractual indemnification as unripe. Under the indemnification agreement liability cannot be transferred to subcontractor to enforce the Miller Act and the prevention doctrine is considered a non sequitur. The court cannot determine at this stage if the claims in fact are covered by the indemnification agreements.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv2789, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Construction, Indemnification, Contract
J. Boardman grants a general contractor’s motion to dismiss a subcontractor’s counterclaim in this Miller Act dispute claiming a breach of subcontract for not paying under the agreement. The general contractor alleges damages for delay, base contract work and change in work per the contract. The subcontractor fails to prove or allege that the contract was satisfied. The subcontractor fails to offer any request or a proper memorandum to support their motion. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the general contractor’s crossclaims is denied.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv2789, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Construction, Contract
J. Brown denies requests by a general contractor and its surety to dismiss a subcontractor’s Miller Act claim totaling $1.1 million for work allegedly performed on a federal construction project in New Orleans on grounds the subcontractor’s claims are subject to arbitration. Citing Fifth Circuit precedent, the ruling rejects dismissal of the federal suit as both inimical to the law giving a subcontractor the right to sue a surety issuing a bond to a general contractor and as a hindrance to litigants from arbitrating their disputes. Therefore, the subcontractor’s federal Miller Act claims against the surety are stayed, pending arbitration of the subcontractor’s state law claims against the general contractor.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Brown, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv2119, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Arbitration, Construction, Contract
J. Lawson partially rules in favor of the insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a subcontractor arising from a military construction project. Although the subcontractor satisfied the notice requirements under a subcontractor payment bond, questions of fact remain as to the terms of the contract between the subcontractor and the company. The company's motion for summary judgment is denied because genuine issues of fact exist as to the terms of a purchase order agreement and whether the parties had an additional, oral profit-sharing agreement.
Court: USDC Middle District of Georgia, Judge: Lawson, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: 7:21cv79, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Contract
J. DeGiusti enters an agreed protective order in this Miller Act case, "governing confidential and private material" produced during discovery. The order covers commercially sensitive information, as well as proprietary information, trade secrets and documents containing personally identifiable information.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: DeGiusti, Filed On: November 3, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv719, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, Discovery
J. Sands partially grants the contractor's and insurer's motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action brought by the subcontractor alleging violations of the Miller Act and the North Carolina Prompt Payment Act arising from a federal construction project in the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. The subcontractor failed to show that the contractor breached the agreement by failing to grant change orders. However, there is a dispute of fact as to whether the contractor was entitled to terminate the subcontractor from the agreement. The subcontractor's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the contractor's and insurer's counterclaim for anticipatory repudiation. The subcontractor's motion is denied with respect to its Miller Act claim.
Court: USDC Middle District of Georgia, Judge: Sands, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: 7:20cv255, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Contract
J. Reznik requires additional information before making a determination on discovery requests from M. Frank Higgins & Co. and third-party defendant Merchants National Bonding relating to the government's claim that the general contractor did not pay for extra work performed on behalf of the government for a public works project. Higgins and Merchants argue that their communications are subject to the common interest privilege and are not subject to discovery by the general contractor, but their seemingly blanket application for all communications does not apply as all communications between them cannot be subject to the common interest privilege.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Reznik, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: 7:22cv9599, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Government, Discovery, Privilege
J. Boardman grants a group of insurance firms’ motion to strike a sheet metal company’s demand for a trial by jury after it was hired on as a subcontractor for a federal construction project. The subcontractor was hired on as a third-tier company to make and install mechanical duct work. After several years’ work, the company filed suit against the insurance group, as well as the first- and second-tier companies that hired it, to pursue payment for various increased expenses for which it has yet to be paid. It demands a trial by jury but signed an agreement that it would not pursue exactly that.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv2789, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Construction, Jury, Contract
J. Schreier denies motion for partial summary judgment in a matter involving a Bureau of Indian Affairs project to replace the roof at the Oglala Adult Offenders Facility at Pine Ridge, South Dakota. Summary judgment is denied because questions still remain concerning industry standards on the asphalt application to roofs.
Court: USDC South Dakota, Judge: Schreier, Filed On: May 30, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv5001, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: Property, Contract