Brait Builders Corp. v. Massachusetts, Division of Capital Asset Management
644 F.3d 5
1st Cir.2011Background
- Brait Builders, a Massachusetts general contractor, held DCAM certifications to bid on public projects; certification requires annual renewal after DCAM review of experience, finances, and capacity.
- In December 2007 DCAM issued a one-year certificate with SPL of $73,738,000 and AWL of $75,408,000.
- In September 2008 Brait was found lowest eligible bidder for the Beverly High School project; DCAM then received allegations of false information in the 2007 application.
- DCAM issued a Final Determination on November 21, 2008 decertifying Brait for one year and the Massachusetts Attorney General rejected Brait’s Beverly Project bid on November 19, 2008.
- Brait asserted §1983 and state-law claims, arguing debarment and bid rejection deprived it of protected property interests without due process, triggering Fourteenth Amendment concerns.
- The district court dismissed the §1983 claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as not involving a protected property interest and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice, noting Eleventh Amendment concerns; the First Circuit vacated and remanded for lack of jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars the suit against DCAM. | Brait contends the case should proceed against DCAM officials. | DCAM raises Eleventh Amendment immunity. | Eleventh Amendment bars the suit against DCAM. |
| Which party is properly the defendant on appeal. | Proposed individual DCAM defendants should be considered defendants. | DCAM is the proper defendant; proposed individuals were not properly joined. | DCAM is the sole defendant in this appeal. |
| Whether Brait has a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment property interest in DCAM certification/debarment. | Brait asserts a protected property interest in bid certifications and contracts. | Court need not reach merits due to Eleventh Amendment bar. | Addressed implicitly; Eleventh Amendment bars suit, precluding merits analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740 (1998) (Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional limitation on federal power)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) ( Eleventh Amendment limits congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity)
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (States not subject to suits by individuals under §1983 absent waiver or abrogation)
- Parella v. Ret. Bd. of R.I. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 173 F.3d 46 (1999) (Eleventh Amendment immunity can be bypassed in certain cases when state will prevail on merits)
- O'Neill v. Baker, 210 F.3d 41 (2000) (Assumed state agency immunity for purposes of analysis)
- Virginia Office for Protection of Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632 (2011) (Direct suit against state agency barred absent waiver/extraordinary circumstances)
- Redondo-Borges v. United States HUD, 421 F.3d 1 (2005) (Notes potential complexities in property-interest analysis where debarment is at issue)