AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. HIRANI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING, PC
1:14-cv-00745
D.D.C.Jun 27, 2017Background
- Hirani contracted with the USACE to perform a federal flood‑protection project and subcontracted much of the work to American Civil Construction (ACC); Colonial issued a Miller Act payment bond for the subcontract.
- Disputes arose in 2013 over delays, scope changes, scheduling, and alleged nonpayment; USACE issued show‑cause notices and ultimately terminated the prime contract for default on April 26, 2013.
- ACC stopped and resumed work at various times; ACC’s contemporaneous quality control reports state work occurred on May 1, 2013, though April 29–30 had rain‑related shutdowns.
- ACC sued Hirani (breach of subcontract) and Colonial (Miller Act) in April 2014; a Second Amended Complaint added a jury demand in February 2016.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and to strike the late jury demand; the court denied summary judgment on the substantive claims but granted the motion to strike the jury demand as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Miller Act claim (when SOL begins) | ACC: limitations runs from last day it performed subcontract work — May 1, 2013 — so suit filed April 29, 2014 was timely | Defs: SOL began either on prime‑contract termination (Apr 26, 2013) or when ACC last performed usable work (Mar 22, 2013), making suit untimely | Genuine dispute of material fact exists whether ACC performed compensable subcontract work on May 1, 2013; summary judgment denied on timeliness |
| Availability of quantum meruit recovery under Miller Act | ACC: quantum meruit damages are available against a surety where prime breached and unpaid value is sought | Defs: Miller Act claim fails because ACC only seeks quantum meruit (not contract) damages | Court rejects per se bar; quantum meruit available in these circumstances and Miller Act requires only furnishing labor/materials and nonpayment; summary judgment denied |
| Breach of subcontract by Hirani / ACC’s contract damages theory | ACC: Hirani materially breached by withholding payment and demanding extra work; ACC may recover reasonable value (quantum meruit) as alternative to contract damages | Hirani: valid fixed‑price subcontract precludes unjust‑enrichment/quantum meruit recovery; ACC is limited to subcontract remedies | Court holds D.C. law permits restitution/quantum meruit as alternative when defendant repudiates or materially breaches; triable issues remain as to breach and damages |
| Colonial’s counterclaim re: ACC failure to provide schedules | Colonial: ACC failed to supply required scheduling information causing delays and contributing to prime termination | ACC: subcontract only required furnishing scheduling information upon request; overall schedule and project manager responsibilities lay with Hirani | Contract language and extrinsic evidence create genuine disputes about scheduling responsibilities and whether ACC complied; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidence not "merely colorable" at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards and nonmovant burden)
- Fleisher Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. United States ex rel. Hallenbeck, 311 U.S. 15 (Miller Act remedial purpose)
- United States ex rel. Noland Co. v. Irwin, 316 U.S. 23 (liberal construction of Miller Act)
- United States ex rel. Bldg. Rentals Corp. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 498 F.2d 335 (quantum meruit recovery against surety under Miller Act)
- United States ex rel. Coastal Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Algernon Blair, Inc., 479 F.2d 638 (allowing quantum meruit recovery where contractor breaches)
- Heller Elec. Co. v. Klingensmith, 670 F.2d 1227 (recognizing equitable recovery principles in Miller Act context)
- United States ex rel. Interstate Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Int’l Fid. Ins. Co., 200 F.3d 456 (approach parsing when SOL begins under Miller Act)