FIGG BRIDGE ENGINEERS, INC. v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
1:20-cv-02188
D.D.C.Aug 17, 2020Background
- Figg Bridge Engineers contracted as design subcontractor for the FIU pedestrian bridge; William Pate served as Engineer of Record. The project received FHWA funding in part.
- On March 15, 2018 the partially-constructed bridge collapsed, killing six and injuring others; visible cracking had been observed shortly before collapse.
- OSHA and the NTSB investigated; the NTSB concluded Figg’s load/capacity calculation errors and the EOR’s failure to appreciate cracking were the probable cause.
- FHWA reviewed the NTSB report, engaged Figg, ultimately accepted the NTSB findings by January 2020, and issued suspensions and proposed debarment notices to Figg and Pate on July 14, 2020, barring federal contracting.
- Figg and Pate sued under the APA and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to lift the suspensions; the district court held a hearing and considered the administrative record.
- The court denied the TRO, concluding plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA challenge to FHWA suspensions under 2 C.F.R. § 180.700 (arbitrary/capricious) | FHWA lacked sufficient justification, especially for "immediate action" prong; agency decision arbitrary | NTSB and OSHA reports supplied adequate evidence of probable cause; FHWA reasonably concluded immediate action was needed to protect public safety | Court: Plaintiffs not likely to succeed; FHWA had adequate evidence and articulated a rational basis for suspension |
| Agency delay between NTSB report (Oct 2019) and suspensions (July 2020) | Delay undermines the claim that immediate action was necessary | FHWA exercised broad discretion, needed time to review a voluminous record and follow internal procedures | Court: Delay did not render suspension arbitrary given agency discretion and factual circumstances |
| Irreparable harm — Figg (economic, reputational, per se) | Suspension will cause immediate economic collapse, reputational injury, and monetary harms are irreparable due to sovereign immunity | Harms are speculative; suspension does not necessarily affect existing federal or state contracts; reputational damage predated the FHWA action | Court: Figg failed to show imminent, non-speculative irreparable harm; per se argument rejected |
| Irreparable harm — Pate (career-ending loss) | Suspension will end his engineering career and preclude future opportunities | Harm speculative; Pate remains employed and no final debarment has been imposed | Court: Pate failed to show imminent, irreparable harm |
| Balance of hardships & public interest | Agency should follow APA; vacatur would mitigate plaintiffs’ harms | Public safety and integrity of federal contracting favor enforcement of suspension | Court: Public interest and equities weigh against injunction; TRO denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires showing likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (application of preliminary-injunction factors in D.C. Circuit)
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (four-factor test for preliminary relief)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard)
- Ethyl Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (presumption of validity for agency action)
- Monument Realty LLC v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 540 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008) (likelihood-of-success threshold for preliminary relief)
- Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 238 (2001) (unduly long agency delay can undercut claim of immediate need for suspension)
- Wisc. Gas Co. v. F.E.R.C., 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (economic loss alone generally does not constitute irreparable harm)
- Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v. E.P.A., 787 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (irreparable-harm standard requires injury that is certain, great, and imminent)
- Beacon Assocs., Inc. v. Apprio, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D.D.C. 2018) (reputational injury can support injunctive relief when directly caused by challenged action)