Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Jay M. Mann (No. 005823)
Robert J. Berens (No. 012056)
2 Hank E. Pearson (No. 014593)
MANN, BERENS & WISNER., LLP
3 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
4 (602) 258-6200
Email: ].I'I'12l`I`l]l[Zl)I1'1lL}\’N’i21W.COl'11
5 rberens[¢i_gmbu*lz1w.ct>m
hpearsongti,!n1bwlaw.com
6 Attorneys for Use-Plaintiff
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I0 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
U THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR)
THE BENEFIT AND USE OF EPC g LEAD
I2 CORPORATION, an A1‘iZOI1B COl`p01`6I10T|, Case No- ?)§I%gl3Pl;-[Ig(XRI2)(gS (
13 _ _ CIV O4-1360 PHX ROS
Use-Plaintiff,
14 (Consolidated)
15 vs.
g EPC’S SUPPLEMENTAL
16 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY ) STATEMENT OF FACTS IN
CQMPANY QF AMERICA; at BL, ) SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
17 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
18 Defendants. g
19
20 EPC offers the following supplemental facts in support of its Motion for Partial
21 Summary Judgment:
22 1, The FAR provisions, which are part of the general contract between Beneco
23
24 and the National Park Service, were incorporated into the subcontract. g Subcontract,
25 1] 2, attached as Exhibit "1" to EPC’s Statement of Facts. Further, the subcontract states
26 that EPC will assume toward Beneco the same rights and obligations that Beneco has
27 toward the owner; therefore, EPC steps into the role of Beneco within the meaning of the
28
so 2:02—cv—02313—ROS Document 113 ‘l‘FiIed 08/08/2005 Page:1 014

I FARs clause, while Beneco becomes the owner for purposes of interpreting the FARs
2 clause. gl.
3
4 2. Section 4 of the subcontract deals with progress payments, and it is clear that
5 the language relating to set—off deals with progress payments. The very next paragraph in
6 Section 4 of the subcontract discusses breaches by EPC, and that paragraph contains
7 different language giving Beneco the right to set-off its damages against EPC in the event
g of a breach. That sentence states that Beneco had the right to "retain out of any payments
10 due to SUBCONTRACTOR an amount sufficient to protect BENECO from any and all
11 loss. . Exhibit "l” to EPC’s Statement of Facts.
12 3. Further, Section 5 of the subcontract, which gives Beneco the right to
; terminate EPC for default also contains language giving Beneco offset rights. That section
15 states that in the event of a default termination, Beneco shall "deduct the cost thereof,
16 including all charges, expenses, losses, costs, damages and attorneys’ fees incurred as a
17 result of SUBCONTRACTOR’s failure to perform from any money due or thereafter to
I; become due to SUBCONTRACTOR? Exhibit “l" to EPC’s Statement of Facts.
20 4. Section 10 of the subcontract states that any time EPC fails to provide
21 sufficient quality work, Beneco could not default EPC until it had provided 3 days’ notice
22 of its intent to default EPC. Exhibit "l" to EPC’s Statement of Facts.
ij 5. Neither Beneco nor Travelers gave EPC any opportunity to cure any
25 allegedly defective work left by EPC. Affidavit of Dennis Shaw, attached to EPC’s
26 Statement of Facts as Exhibit "l4".
27
28
ase 2:02—cv—02313—ROS Document 113 ‘2‘FiIed 08/08/2005 Page 2 of 4

1 6. Travelers claims that it has a $429,000 back charge t0 EPC for alleged mass
2 grading problems, but at no time after the termination for convenience did Beneco or
3
4 Travelers provide a three-day notice to EPC that there were defects in the mass grading
5 requiring correction. Deposition testimony of Curtis Williams, p. 199, attached hereto as
6 Exhibit "A". A
7 DATED this `tlay of August, 2005.
8
MANN, B S & W NER, L.L.P.
9
10
ll By
12 ay M. Mann
Robert J. Berens
13 Hank E. Pearson
Attorneys for Use-Plaintiff
14
15
Original of the foregoin lectronically filed
16 and copy mailed this j ’ day of August, 2005, to:
17 Hon. Roslyn O. Silver
18 United States District Court
Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 624
19 401 West Washington Street, SPC 59
20 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2158
21
22 Copies of t regoing electronically
served this day of August, 2005, to:
23
David F. Gaona, Esq.
24 Gaona Law Firm
25 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
26 Attorneys for Plaintiff Standard Construction
27
28
se 2:02—cv—02313—ROS Document 113 ·3·FiIed 08/08/2005 Page 3 of 4

1 James L. Csontos, Esq.
2 Jennings Haug & Cunningham, LLP
2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800
3 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1049
Attorneys for Defendant Travelers
4
5 Steven D. Jerome, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
6 One Arizona Center
7 400 East Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
3 Attorneys for Beneco Enterprises, L.L.C.
9 David E. Leta, Esq.
10 Snell & Wilmer LLP
Gateway Tower West
11 15 South Temple, Suite 1200
12 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1547
Attomeys for Beneco Enterprises, L.L.C.
13
of · " ,, ,, 4 “,‘
11 4-8
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C se 2:02—cv—02313—F1OS Document 113 ‘4FiIed 08/08/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02313-ROS

Document 113

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02313-ROS

Document 113

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02313-ROS

Document 113

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02313-ROS

Document 113

Filed 08/08/2005

Page 4 of 4