B&S GLASS, INCORPORATED v. DEL METRO, INCORPORATED, 1:20-cv-02769

B&S Glass (Va. contractor), owner Luis Bottani, and employee Melissa Lopez sued Del Metro and its owner Gary Dellovade after Del Metro stopped payments under a subcontract for façade work on the Capital Vista Project.
Parties agree B&S Glass was paid about $161,522 of a $289,000 contract; plaintiffs claim $92,104 remains owed; defendants contend prior payments overpaid B&S and that completed work was deficient.
Plaintiffs allege Del Metro personnel told them payment would stop because B&S employees were not U.S. citizens and that speakers referred to workers as “Mexicans” or “from south of the border.”
Del Metro sent a termination email citing lack of production, poor quality control, and jobsite incidents; plaintiffs say those reasons were first raised only at termination and were pretextual.
Procedural posture: Defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to dismiss Counts III (good faith/fair dealing), IV (defamation), and VI (race discrimination). Court granted the motion as to Counts III and IV and denied as to Count VI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Virginia law governs and whether an implied duty of good faith/fair dealing survives under that law	Agreement’s choice-of-law clause is unenforceable because contract not fully signed; alternatively D.C. law applies and supports claim	Choice-of-law clause is valid; Virginia law applies and does not recognize an implied duty when express terms govern	Court enforces Virginia choice-of-law clause and, because plaintiffs concede Virginia law bars the claim, Count III dismissed
Whether alleged statements (that Del Metro paid wages and that Bottani was withholding pay) are actionable defamation	Statements accused Bottani of being a cheat/deadbeat harming reputation	Statements were non-defamatory blame-shifting about who paid employees and not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning	Court holds the alleged remarks are not defamatory as a matter of law and dismisses Count IV
Whether § 1981 claim pleads actionable racial discrimination and but-for causation (race vs. national origin; causal link)	Alleged remarks invoked ethnicity/ancestry ("south of the border", "Mexicans") and conditioned payment/termination on citizenship, supporting a § 1981 claim	Comments refer to national origin only; plaintiffs do not plead that race (not nationality) was the but-for cause of termination	Court finds factual disputes (ethnicity vs. nationality and whether race was a but-for cause) and denies Rule 12(c) as to Count VI

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (federal court applies forum choice-of-law rules)
Whiting v. AARP, 637 F.3d 355 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (enforcing valid contractual choice-of-law clauses with a reasonable relationship to chosen state)
Ward’s Equip. v. New Holland N. Am., 493 S.E.2d 516 (Va. 1997) (Virginia doesn’t imply a duty of good faith where express contract terms govern)
Smith v. Clinton, 886 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (defamatory meaning requires more than an unpleasant portrayal)
Hourani v. Mirtchev, 796 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (elements required to state a defamation claim)
Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1987) (§1981 protects against discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic characteristics)
Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (U.S. 2020) (§1981 requires but-for causation)
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020) (recognizing that events often have multiple but-for causes)