Free Joint Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-01665-CFL

Document 34

Filed 04/21/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS _____________________________ NOVA CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. _____________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 04-1665C (Judge Lettow)

JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Court's order dated March 3, 2006, the parties respectfully submit this joint status report. Plaintiff,

Nova Casualty Company ("Nova"), is the surety on a contract between the United States Coast Guard (the "Coast Guard") and Eagle Management Enterprises ("the contractor" or "Eagle Management"). After satisfying the payment bond claims of the

subcontractors, Nova brought a claim against the Government for $25,303.50, which it alleged should not have been paid to the contractor in July 2003. In response to the Government's motion

to dismiss, this Court found that Nova had stated a viable claim under the Tucker Act and the doctrine of equitable subrogation, to seek approximately $6,7001 that allegedly should have remained in the contract retainage had the Coast Guard not improperly paid the contractor in July 2003. Nova Cas. Co. v. United States, 69

The Court arrived at this figure by subtracting the amount the Coast Guard paid to have another contractor complete the original contract after Eagle Management failed to do so, from the contract balance before the July 2003 payment was made to Eagle Management. See Nova Cas. Co., 69 Fed. Cl. at 296-97.

1

Case 1:04-cv-01665-CFL

Document 34

Filed 04/21/2006

Page 2 of 4

Fed. Cl. 284, 299 (2006).

Pursuant to this Court's opinion and

order of January 12, 2006, the only issue remaining in this case is whether the contracting officer, John O'Boyle, or the Coast Guard, contravened FAR § 52.232-5, 48 C.F.R. § 52.232-5, which was incorporated into the prime contract, by distributing $25,303.50 to Eagle Management in July 2003. 69 Fed. Cl. at 298-99. The parties believe that this remaining issue can be resolved by filing a joint stipulation of facts followed by cross-motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, the parties See Nova Cas. Co.,

propose the following course of proceedings: on or before May 19, 2006, the parties will file a joint stipulation of facts; on or before June 30, 2006, the parties will file cross-motions for summary judgment; and, on or before July 28, 2006, the parties will file their responses to the cross-motions for summary judgment. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director

s/James M. Kinsella JAMES M. KINSELLA Deputy Director

2

Case 1:04-cv-01665-CFL

Document 34

Filed 04/21/2006

Page 3 of 4

s/Neil B. Connelly NEIL B. CONNELLY 99 Church Street White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 328-4100 Fax: (914) 684-0401 Attorney for Plaintiff

s/Dawn S. Conrad DAWN S. CONRAD Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 305-7562 Fax: (202) 305-7643 OF COUNSEL: ISAAC JOHNSON, JR. Attorney Office of Procurement Law United States Coast Guard Attorneys for Defendant

electronically filed, April 21, 2006

3

Case 1:04-cv-01665-CFL

Document 34

Filed 04/21/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21st day of April, 2006, a

copy of the foregoing "JOINT STATUS REPORT" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be

sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's

s/Dawn S. Conrad