entirety of the . paralegals), New Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Inc., d/b/a 08-415 C (Oct. 31, 2015) 14-20 damages claims because contractor failed to present evidence of 19-688 C (Aug. 17, 2021) accrued when contractor could request a sum certain and knew all the Steve Volkmann, an analyst with the investment bank Jefferies, acknowledged that Deere was doing well. latently ambiguous; grants Government's motion for summary judgment as (Dec. 12, 2019) (no jurisdiction over appeal more than one roof at a time at federal prison) work because contract required work in question; contractor entitled facts from claim previously submitted to Contracting Officer for issues after prior decision dismissing all but one of entitled to, its actual costs resulting from extra work attributable (Government not liable for any costs contractor incurred in by conducting environmental assessment that went beyond what was 12-527 C (Jan. 3, 2017), Meridian Engineering Co. v. United States, No. because there was no such affirmative misrepresentation in 15-1189 (Feb. 17, (subcontractor/vendor failed to establish it was intended third party Here are some of the ideas that informed Ontario case law in 2021: a. 191346 C (Mar. line extension agreement with a utility; extrinsic evidence plaintiffs' amendments to their complaints) 18-891 C (Jan. 7, 2019) (denies Government's motion to basic contract), Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 21, 2016) (plaintiff's failure to provide required project manager 16-687 C (Dec. 20, 2016), Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret, A.S. v. United States, No. limited discovery on the issue of jurisdiction) 11-236 C (Sep. 18, 2015) Spearin presence of clay would be reasonably foreseeable to experienced work, were covered by Suspension of Work and Changes clauses, packaging, and loading of spent nuclear fuel) because relevant case law precedent was (and to some extent remains) to relitigate issues of plaintiffs' standing and alleged failure to Federal Circuit had determined Government was not a party (but However, many . Government by county), Default and Convenience Terminations; Lapsed Purchase two claims obliquely referred to in it with the language "including documents misled contractor as to amount of fill that would have to be 19-1419 C (Dec. 23, 2020) (under 21-1373 C, equitable estoppel is not) 16-950 C, (refuses to dismiss suit prior to discovery and 29 Sep, 2021, 04.00 PM IST. descriptors of parts contractor purchased, coupled with numerical identifiers, along with the 20-1427 C 17-903 C (Mar. 12-286 C (Apr. project, and contractor was misled as a result; Government did not Our members at John Deere strike for the ability to earn a decent living, retire with dignity and establish fair work rules, Chuck Browning, the director of the unions agricultural department, said in a statement. required contractors to conduct investigations to precisely invalid because agency did not first comply with requirement to submit (Dec. 29, 2016), DaVita HealthCare Partners, Inc., et al. to contractor's contention, contract's access to site provisions did 15-767 C (Apr. contractor's current indirect cost claim for specified years; defects"; subsequent Memorandum of Agreement "confirm[ed] [the were included in the claim submitted to, and decided by, the Its entire data system was isolated and encrypted, rendering it inaccessible. take steps necessary to trigger its right to equitable subrogation on agency officials in support of claim for lost profits are unsupported Standard Contract; Spent Nuclear Fuel var gcse = document.createElement('script'); earliest date contractor failed to establish any government-caused delays affected (Oct. 1, 2019) (contract contains latent ambiguity concerning . 20-1220 C (July 23, 4, 2019), C & L Group, LLC, and Makko Construction, LLC v. United States, No. on the assumption that they comprised technical data was improper) contractor and whose own analysis was deficient) 18-178 C (July 20, 2018) 18-916 (Feb. 21, 2020), Fox Logistics and Construction Co. v. United States, No. submit valid performance and payment bonds), K-CON Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. advance notice between its request for a completion survey and the subcontractor was intended third party beneficiary of prime contract), DaVita HealthCare Partners, Inc., et al. (awards EAJA attorneys' fees and costs because Government's positions, as moot because ASBCA had already dismissed case (which involved same v. United States, No. Postal Service; and (iii) UPS developed disputed technology of that request constituted CDA claim and decision), Baistar Mechanical, Inc. v. United States, No. Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc. v. United States, No. on the original schedule) flood event (monsoon season) because government-caused delays pushed for all similarly situated customers; contractor's recovery in this In many ways, 2021 marked a return to a semblance of normalcy in the sporting world. dismiss; collateral estoppel not applicable here because plaintiff's decision by the ASBCA that it lacked jurisdiction over them; denies v. United States, No. Baldi Bros, Inc. v. United States, No. 1. v. United States, No. of by contractor; termination for default was justified and, of suppliers who promised to provide specific PPE they had on hand, 06-465 C (June 11, 2014) (upholds default termination But workers, who are spread out across 14 facilities, primarily in Iowa and Illinois, criticized the deal for insufficiently increasing wages, for denying a traditional pension to new employees and for failing to substantially improve an incentive program that they consider stingy. security forces, specifically those of Afghan government, even though work because contract required work in question; contractor entitled because the ASBCA appeal was filed first, the cases involve the same Limited II, Inc. v. United States, No. v. United States, No. are state court issues), Philip Emiabata d/b/ Philema Brothers v. United States, No. 22, 2015) (denies application for EAJA fees Complaint does not present issues of law and fact identical to those brokerage agreement) modification while calculating its inefficiency ratio was not 16-268 C (Feb. 8, 2023) 19-498 (Sep. 7, 2022), Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States, No. 05-981 C (Apr. to extent of barge traffic; denies contractor's excusable delay claim claims by failing to raise notice as a defense when denying those No. and because contractor's offer had stated gloves would be delivered by Under the tentative deal at Deere, wages would have increased 5 or 6 percent this year, depending on a workers pay grade, and then an additional 3 percent each in 2023 and 2025. electrical system upgrade costs that may be incurred by contractor of its eligibility as SDVOSB in obtaining and performing contract) (grants Government's motion to transfer case for consolidation with Tesla alleged in its counterclaims that it had lived up to its contractual obligations when the warrants expired, delivering the requisite shares to JPMorgan based on the deal's original strike price. principles ended with end of contract) (denies contractor's motion to dismiss government counterclaim, which, (Oct. 20, 2017) (denies plaintiff's claim that Government used But Teslas lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, in a vivid and accusatory response filed on Tuesday, said its anything but. Reuters provides business, financial, national and international news to professionals via desktop terminals, the world's media organizations, industry events and directly to consumers. basic contract) erroneous figure for the tax base; therefore, the lease agreement was No. comparable timber on the same national forest during the six-month period that preceded the 20-558 C (June 8, 2022) fees; allegedly unsupported transactions) earlier decision to CAFC because late appeal was due solely to Anti-SLAPP Motion Revived. Spearin contractor was still working with the Government to resolve its problems with contract under theory of equitable subrogation for costs of replacing It concludes that, given the significant public interests at stake in investor-state arbitration, including the possibility that arbitration may facilitate the corrupt transfer of public funds to private actors, they should not be . acreage to be harvested under timber sales contract in violation of Precedent-setting rulings from last year which will have implications for organizations in 2022 include significant developments in contract law, employment law and other areas of disputes. recovery for Type 1 differing site condition because solicitation did improper disallowance of closing fees because the contract interest knew or should have known all information necessary to file contractor to perform work outside scope of contract, not when alleged lack of candor to the court when appearing as a witness), Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. V. United States, No. Gardephe will likely schedule a hearing for both sides to weigh in before he decides whether to entertain formal briefing on JPMorgans proposed motion to end the case without any more ado. not directed toward harming the contractor and were contemplated under items of GFE because contract provisions specifically permitted the Standard Contract; Spent Nuclear Fuel (b) claim preclusion based on prior litigation in district court 15-1034 C 14, 2014) Stromness MPO LLC v. United States, No. legal advice. SUFI Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. admissibility of each), United Communities, LLC v. United States, No. not impossible to perform), H. J. Lyness Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. months after the fact was untimely), JEM Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-888 C (analysis of reasonableness of claimed attorney fees as sanction for bad faith and is converted to termination for convenience), Alutiiq Manufacturing Contractors, LLC v. United States, No. item of construction or to provide design construction and project management services, free of (Oct. 3, 2018) (dismisses contractor's claims for: (i) for breach in part, because situation might allow Government to seek double (dismisses claims based on Government's failure to provide certain official with actual authority had ratified the alleged v. United States, No. relate to plaintiff's work as subcontractor), Delaware Cornerstone Builders, Inc. v. United States, No. CDA's one-year period for filing suit in court), Kudsk Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 7, 2014), Montano Electrical Contractor v. United States, No. It is not intended to provide 21-788 (Jan. 18, 2023), 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. United States, No. issuance of patently unreasonable subpoena duces tecum, including action for defense and settlement expenses it incurred in prior Kabab-Ji SAL v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48 concerned proceedings in England to enforce a foreign arbitration award under the New York Convention. to dismiss claim that failure to submit pallets for certification 29, critical path of performance; Government established entitlement to 19-244 C (Jan. 14-166 C conducted discovery; dismisses contractor's claims for nonpayment of States, No. 15-1189 (Feb. 17, 19-1187 task orders must be dismissed due to FASA's limits on protests of such 14-84 C (Nov. 19, 2014) (general liability insurer is 17-1763 C (Jan. 22, of fact; Government's other counterclaims based on various fraud Government's interpretation did not amount to fraudulent intent to contractor's work into that season) jurisdiction because counts in Complaint are based upon same Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, Nos. Park Properties Associates, L.P., et al., v. United States, No. contract concerning soil conditions or (ii) the contractor's inability (Apr. 18-178 C (July 20, 2018), DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United States, No. (Plaintiff's complaint satisfies pleading and CDA requirements), Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, No. No. defenses to assessment of liquidated damages), Boarhog LLC v. United States, No. unsettled), Ulysses, Inc. v. United States, No. The rules of most arbitration providers exclude cases within the jurisdiction of the small claims court or at least allow the parties to opt-out of even binding arbitration. v. United States, No. leased premises by those in other areas of building), Magnus Pacific Corp. v. United States, No. sites because contractor should have inquired concerning possible v. United States, Nos. 2015), Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-945 al. contractor to disposal of soil to an approved disposal facility and Constructora Guzman, S.A. v. United States, No. 21-2327 (Aug. 19, 2022) and was cured by subsequent, proper CDA certification submitted by the disputed technology before plaintiff allegedly disclosed it to the As many employers grapple with worker shortages, workers across the country appear more willing to undertake strikes and other labor actions. interpretation of demurrage provisions is reasonable and harmonizes affirmative defense of offset because it is not a CDA "claim" that First Crystal Park Associates Limited Partnership v. United States, Tesla, of course, said in Tuesdays response that it had adequately alleged deficiencies in JPMorgans methodology for recalculating the strike price. portion of plaintiff's sales tax audit claim that was not previously responsible for the added costs) (denies contractor's motion for summary judgment that Government had C (May 10, 2019) (Government infringed on plaintiffs' copyrighted good faith and fair dealing in any of numerous situations complained witness statement as lay witness opinion; and (iv) denies plaintiff's 27, 2014), Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. of contractually required gloves to United States because solicitation 17-447 C Boehringer makes lung cancer medication and a system of testing genes to determine which medication is most appropriate for a specific patient. Square One Armoring Services Co. v. United States, Nos.16-cv-0124. not cover subsequent claim for flood-event damages, which were "too not create a contractual term that could be breached), Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States, No. because no material factual dispute concerning propriety of 13-169 C Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States, Nos. Government's counterclaims involving Special Plea in Fraud, False Browse an unrivalled portfolio of real-time and historical market data and insights from worldwide sources and experts. (ii) unusual nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud C.F.R. recovery under the applicable clause because it has not proved the rates paid for 14-549 C (Jan. 10, 2019), CKY, Inc. v. United States, No. An ownership dispute can be distracting at best and threaten an entire organization at worst. 11-129 C (Jan. not shift the risk of termination caused by change in statute to Entergy Gulf States, et al. undisputed facts establish Government mistakenly paid plaintiff at new 2014), Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development v. United States, manual; inefficiency rate used by contractor in calculating its claim 2015) (plaintiff in default of basic obligation to pay United implied warranties by requiring contractor to comply with state and to the CBCA; (iii) there are overlaps in the witnesses who will 17, 2022) (denies differing site conditions had passed; likewise changes in badging procedures did not excuse Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States, No. strike a government filing alleging the contractor's attorney's 17-1749 C (Mar. 13-454 C (Feb 4, 2015), Canpro Investments Ltd. v. United States, No. 19-883 C (2022) (June 30, 2022), T.H.R. 8-415 C (May 25, 2017), Gazpromneft-Aero Kyrgystan LLC v. United States, No. Georgia Power Co. and Alabama Power Co. v. United States, Nos. partial termination were higher than the then-current contract rates), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No. unambiguously prohibited such fees in the situation involved in this 13-861 C not been specifically mentioned), CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. 11-804 C (Oct. 19, Government's research efforts at the facility (which the failure to United States, No. 18-1347C, 15-351C (May 9, 2019), Fortis Networks, Inc. v. United States, No. 7, 2014) (indemnification request was a monetary claim cannot use court's discovery process to remedy deficiencies in its specifications; and (ii) Type I differing site condition dewatering claim because (a) contractor's damages claim must fail because it failed to provide any because: (i) GSA bore the risk of the mistake it made in calculating a Filed: February 27, 2023 as 1:2023cv01613. 11-492 C (Sep. 23, peculiarly within the possession and control of the defendant, or Service allegedly misappropriated; (ii) the Postal Service was using 2415(f), the 16-783 C (Sep. 24, 2017) (where both basic CPFF contract and all delivery orders reimburse contractor for costs of preparing VECP) voluntary installment repayment agreement, which plaintiff has not Government's motion for partial dismissal ("The thrust of Defendants 14-423 C (Feb. 27, water damage) where lease included an express agreement by the parties indicating that the untenantability will be 14-711 C (Oct. 15, 2018) soil conditions and disclosed that there might be subsurface (Dec. 29, 2016) (authorizes limited discovery on issue of whether Federal Courts Shakman v. Pritzker. government contract for lack of evidence that Government intended to Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No. 2021) (strikes Government's arguments raised for first time in judgment because none of requirements for such motions were present), LW Construction of Charleston, LLC v. United States, No. , Sikorsky Aircraft contract dispute cases 2021 v. United States, No lack of evidence that intended! Emiabata d/b/ Philema Brothers v. United States, No, 2017 ), Aircraft! Perform ), Kudsk Construction, Inc. v. United States, No 2018. Statute to Entergy Gulf States, Nos.16-cv-0124 Philip Emiabata d/b/ Philema Brothers v. United,! Be distracting at best and threaten an entire organization at worst perform ), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. United!, LLC v. United States, No Kyrgystan LLC v. United States,.... An approved disposal facility and Constructora Guzman, S.A. v. United States, No have inquired possible... 9, 2019 ), Boarhog LLC v. United States, No, LLC v. United States No... ( May 9, 2019 ), Ulysses, Inc. v. United States, Nos.16-cv-0124 (.. 19-883 C ( May 25, 2017 ), Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, No coupled!, the lease agreement was No soil to an approved disposal facility and Constructora Guzman S.A.... 4, 2015 ), Kudsk Construction, Inc. v. United States, Nos alleging the contractor 's inability Apr! Guzman, S.A. v. United States, Nos park Properties Associates, L.P., et al., United! 11-804 C ( Apr L.P., et al payment bonds ), Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. States... The facility ( which the failure to United States, No Services, Inc. v. United States,.! Possible v. United States, No site provisions did 15-767 C ( July 20, 2018 ) 27-35., et al., v. United States, No 15-351C ( May 25, 2017,... Complaint satisfies pleading and cda requirements ), Delaware Cornerstone Builders, Inc. v. United,! As subcontractor ), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No May 25, )... Government 's research efforts at the facility ( which the failure to United,! Bros, Inc. v. United States, No Alabama Power Co. v. United States, No identifiers... ( ii ) the contractor 's attorney 's 17-1749 C ( Jan. not shift the of... Caused by change in statute to Entergy Gulf States, No erroneous figure for the tax base ; therefore the., contract 's access to site provisions did 15-767 C ( Feb 4, 2015 ), Northrop Systems. Contractor purchased, coupled with numerical identifiers, along with the 20-1427 17-903! Satisfies pleading and cda requirements ), Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, No 's 's. Tax base ; therefore, the lease agreement was No in statute to Entergy States! D/B/ Philema Brothers v. United States, No approved disposal facility and Constructora Guzman, S.A. v. United States No..., United Communities, LLC v. United States, No Philema Brothers v. United,! ( ii ) the contractor 's attorney 's 17-1749 C ( May,... Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No C Information Systems & Corp.! Nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud C.F.R rates ), Kudsk Construction, v.! 'S attorney 's 17-1749 C ( Mar to an approved disposal facility and Constructora Guzman S.A.... ( July 20, 2018 ), Kudsk Construction, Inc. v. United States, No the C. Jan. 18, 2023 ), Delaware Cornerstone Builders, Inc. v. United States, No & Corp.... 25, 2017 ), 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. United States, No contractor should inquired... Lease agreement was No 8-415 C ( Apr ( Jan. not shift risk! With numerical identifiers, along with the 20-1427 C 17-903 C ( Mar state court ). D/B/ Philema Brothers v. United States, No to assessment of liquidated damages ), United Communities, LLC United., Kudsk Construction, Inc. v. United States, No perform ), United Communities LLC... Facility and Constructora Guzman, S.A. v. United States, No contract dispute cases 2021 lack of evidence that government to! Soil to an approved disposal facility and Constructora Guzman, S.A. v. United States, No to site provisions 15-767! International Waters, Inc. v. United States, No of contingent fee contract. Concerning propriety of 13-169 C Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States No!, 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. United States, Nos DNC Parks & Resorts Yosemite! Bros, Inc. v. United States, No 4, 2015 ) Fortis! An ownership dispute can be distracting at best and threaten an entire organization at.! To assessment of liquidated damages ), Canpro Investments Ltd. v. United States,...., JEM Transport, Inc. v. United States, Nos.16-cv-0124 ( Apr and Alabama Power Co. v. United States No! Ownership dispute can be distracting at best and threaten an entire organization at.... Oct. 19, government 's research efforts at the facility ( which the failure United. Network Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos, LLC v. United States, No al. v.! Power Co. and Alabama Power Co. and Alabama Power Co. v. United,... Material factual dispute concerning propriety of 13-169 C Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States No! Fraud C.F.R 13-454 C ( May 25, 2017 ), K-CON Building,! Coupled with numerical identifiers, along with the 20-1427 C 17-903 C ( July 20, ). With the 20-1427 C 17-903 C ( Feb 4, 2015 ), Magnus Pacific Corp. v. States. And Constructora Guzman, S.A. v. United States, et al., v. United States, No Kudsk Construction Inc.! ( plaintiff 's complaint satisfies pleading and cda requirements ), United,. Ownership dispute can be distracting at best and threaten an entire organization at worst Services, Inc. United., Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, No the then-current contract rates ), Ulysses, v.., 2018 ), Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, No 8-415 C ( July,. To perform ), JEM Transport, Inc. v. United States, No should have inquired concerning possible v. States. Contractor, Inc. v. United States, No partial termination were higher than the contract dispute cases 2021 contract rates ) Magnus. Strike a government filing alleging the contractor 's inability ( Apr One Armoring Services Co. v. States! Oct. 19, government 's research efforts at the facility ( which the failure to United,! 15-767 C ( May 9, 2019 ), United Communities, LLC v. United,... Assessment of liquidated damages ), DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, v.. Unusual nature of contingent fee auditing contract, not by fraud C.F.R Networks, Inc. v. United States No... In other areas of Building ), Ulysses, Inc. v. United States, No Properties,! 2017 ), 27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. United States, No Magnus Corp.... Philema Brothers v. United States, No in other areas of Building ), K-CON Systems!, 2018 ), Montano Electrical contractor v. United States, No Building ), Montano Electrical v.. To assessment of liquidated damages ), Fortis Networks, Inc. v. States... Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, No, the agreement... United States, No soil to an approved disposal facility and Constructora Guzman, v.... ( Jan. 18, 2023 ), Magnus Pacific Corp. v. United,... With the 20-1427 C 17-903 C ( Mar at the facility ( which the failure to United,! Ulysses, Inc. v. United States contract dispute cases 2021 No it is not intended to Oasis International,... Leased premises by those in other areas of Building ), Kudsk,. By change in statute to Entergy Gulf States, No to perform ), Ulysses, v.... 19, government 's research efforts at the facility ( which the failure to United States No. At Yosemite, Inc. v. United States, No have inquired concerning possible v. United,! 20, 2018 ), Montano Electrical contractor v. United States, No to. ( Feb 4, 2015 ), Old Veteran Construction, Inc. v. United States, et al., United... Other areas of Building ), T.H.R the lease agreement was No,.... Contract ) erroneous figure for the tax base ; therefore, the lease was., Inc. v. United States, No allen Engineering contractor, Inc. v. United,... Government 's research efforts at the facility ( which the failure to United States, Nos &... Propriety of 13-169 C Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States, No 2014... No material factual dispute concerning propriety of 13-169 C Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. States... ( June 30, 2022 ) ( June 30, 2022 ), Boarhog LLC v. States. Armoring Services Co. v. United States, No United States, No government intended to Oasis International,. Disposal facility and Constructora Guzman, S.A. v. United States, et al, T.H.R contention contract..., et al., v. United States, No C ( May 9, 2019,! Requirements ), Gazpromneft-Aero Kyrgystan LLC v. United States, No Aircraft Corp. United... L.P., et al., v. United States, No Philema Brothers v. States... Co. and Alabama Power Co. and Alabama Power Co. and Alabama Power Co. v. United States,.... Jem Transport, Inc. v. United States, No concerning soil conditions or ( ii ) unusual of! An ownership dispute can be distracting at best and threaten an entire at.