Tetra Tech, Inc. v. Municipality of Arecibo, 3:13-cv-01651

Tetra Tech, an environmental consultant, contracted with the Municipality of Arecibo to assist with Clean Water Act (MS4 / Storm Water Management Plan) compliance and related projects beginning in 2011.
Parties executed multiple contracts totaling $1,161,055; Tetra Tech invoiced $935,280.97 and claimed $32,036 remained unpaid at the time of the motion.
Arecibo paid $771,433 after out-of-court efforts and paid the Hazard Mitigation Plan balance; disputes remained over deliverables and certain invoices.
Arecibo’s municipal secretary submitted a sworn statement asserting Tetra Tech failed to deliver certain final products (storm sewer mapping) and did not provide evidence of completion for specified tasks.
Tetra Tech submitted some contracts and supporting documents in Spanish without certified English translations; the court struck those documents for failure to comply with Local Rule 5(g).
The court denied Tetra Tech’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact about performance and invoicing and procedural failures by Tetra Tech that precluded summary disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tetra Tech is entitled to summary judgment for unpaid invoices (~$32,036)	Tetra Tech: it performed the work and was not paid for invoiced services	Arecibo: Tetra Tech failed to deliver contracted products and provide evidence of completion, so non-payment is justified	Denied — genuine factual disputes exist about performance and evidence of completion
Whether invoiced work corresponded to contracted tasks	Tetra Tech: invoices reflect services performed under the contracts	Arecibo: some invoiced tasks were not part of the contracts, challenging entitlement to payment	Denied — court cannot verify due to disputes and struck translations; questions of contract scope remain
Whether untranslated contract documents can be considered	Tetra Tech: submitted contracts and web materials in Spanish with no certified translation	Arecibo: objected to untranslated documents; court must enforce local rule	Court struck untranslated documents for noncompliance with Local Rule 5(g), limiting record
Whether summary judgment procedure was properly supported by the parties	Tetra Tech: moved for summary judgment but failed to reply to defendant’s additional facts and violated local rules	Arecibo: submitted controverting facts and a sworn statement; movant failed to controvert	Court emphasized movant’s failures under Local Rule 56 and treated some of defendant’s facts as admitted, contributing to denial

Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Corp., 722 F.2d 922 (1st Cir.) (district courts need adequate assistance from counsel on summary judgment filings)
Vega-Rodríguez v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 110 F.3d 174 (1st Cir.) (movant bears burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
Cortés-Irizarry v. Corporación Insular, 111 F.3d 184 (1st Cir.) (resisting party must show trial-worthy issue; draw inferences for non-movant)
Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodríguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir.) (court must view record in light most flattering to non-movant)
United States v. One Parcel of Real Property (New Shoreham, R.I.), 960 F.2d 200 (1st Cir.) (definition of materiality and genuine factual disputes)