Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S., PROGRESSIVE SERVICES, INC. v. JMR CONSTRUCTION CORP., 2:11-cv-03005-JAM-DAD. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150623853 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO LIFT STAY JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff Progressive Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff") moves (Doc. #30) to lift the stay issued November 8, 2012 (Doc. #29), of this action against Defendants JMR Construction Corp. ("JMR"); North American Specialty Insurance Company ("NAS"); and Does 1 through 10 (collectively "Defendants"), and on JMR's Counterclaim (Doc. #10) against Plaintiff and Roes 1 through 10. 1 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2010,
More

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO LIFT STAY

Plaintiff Progressive Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff") moves (Doc. #30) to lift the stay issued November 8, 2012 (Doc. #29), of this action against Defendants JMR Construction Corp. ("JMR"); North American Specialty Insurance Company ("NAS"); and Does 1 through 10 (collectively "Defendants"), and on JMR's Counterclaim (Doc. #10) against Plaintiff and Roes 1 through 10.1

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2010, JMR entered into a contract with the Department of the Air Force, on behalf of the United States of America, to perform certain work at Beale Air Force Base in California ("Project"). First Amended Complaint ("FAC") (Doc. #7) ¶ 6. One month later, JMR entered into a subcontract with Plaintiff in which Plaintiff agreed to furnish certain roofing work on the Project. Id. ¶ 8. Shortly after Plaintiff began working on the Project, it ran into unforeseen difficulties and required additional time and compensation to complete the roofing work. Id. ¶¶ 9-11, 14, 15. Plaintiff submitted its requests for additional compensation to JMR and JMR refused to pay. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff filed its original complaint on November 10, 2011 and its FAC on January 12, 2012.

On November 7, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendants submitted a Joint Motion to Stay ("Joint Motion") (Doc. #27). In this motion, the parties stated that they had an agreement ("Agreement") to enter into a pass-through arrangement. Joint Mot. at p. 2. The pass-through arrangement would allow Plaintiff to pursue additional compensation, in JMR's name, for the unanticipated site conditions directly against the U.S. Government under the Contract Disputes Act ("CDA"), 41 U.S.C. § 7101. Id. The Joint Motion requested that this litigation be stayed pending the outcome of the dispute resolution process outlined in the CDA, and that all pre-trial and discovery deadlines should be vacated. Id. The Court granted the Joint Motion (Doc. #29) and this lawsuit has been stayed since November 8, 2012.

II. OPINION

Plaintiff asks the Court to lift the stay in order to pursue recovery through the instant action. Mot. ¶ 5. The Court stayed this case "pending Plaintiff's pursuit of administrative remedies against the federal government" (Doc. #29). Plaintiff has fulfilled its obligations under the Court's stay Order. It did so voluntarily and at its sole cost and expense. Its decision to now stop pursuing this administrative remedy is well within its rights under the stay Order. Indeed, nowhere in any agreement, motion or order is there any language which prohibits Plaintiff from filing the instant motion until all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Plaintiff is also not required to obtain Defendants' consent before deciding to stop pursuing any administrative remedies.

Plaintiff is entitled to have its day in court. The reasons for the administrative claim being denied are not relevant nor does it matter whether or not Defendants met all of their obligations under the joint agreement staying this action. Regardless of the terms of the written Joint Prosecution Agreement, the conditions of the stay are controlled by the Court's Order. Defendants have not cited to any law or authority that gives the Court the power to deny the motion.

The Court ordered a stay of the instant action "in light of the parties' agreement and stipulation that this matter should be stayed pending Plaintiff's pursuit of administrative remedies against the federal government." Order at p. 1. The purpose of the stay was to give the parties a chance to either resolve the action or simplify the issues for trial. See Joint Mot. at p. 2. After more than two and a half years it is readily apparent that the parties are no longer in agreement, and Plaintiff is now entitled to resume its action for recovery in this Court. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion and lifts the stay.

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to lift the stay. The parties shall file a joint status report within twenty days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled for June 17, 2015.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer