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

Case 1:07-cv-00080-MCW

Document 7

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS TPI CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-80C (Judge Coster Williams)

JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT Pursuant to Rule 16 and Appendix A of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), the parties hereby submit this joint preliminary status report. a. Does the Court have jurisdiction over this action?

Plaintiff states that the Court possesses jurisdiction to consider and decide this action pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 609(a)(1). At this time, defendant is not aware of any reason to challenge the Court's jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's complaint. b. Should this case be consolidated with any other case?

The parties agree that this case should not be consolidated with any other case. c. Should trial of liability and damages be bifurcated?

The parties agree that the trial of liability and damages should not be bifurcated. d. Should further proceedings be deferred pending consideration of another case before this Court or any other tribunal and the reasons therefore?

The parties agree that further proceedings in this case should not be deferred pending consideration of another case before this Court or any other tribunal.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00080-MCW

Document 7

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 2 of 5

e.

Will a remand or suspension be sought?

Neither of the parties will seek remand or suspension. f. Will additional parties be joined?

The parties agree that they will not join any additional parties. g. Does either party intend to file a dispositive motion pursuant to Rule 12(b), 12(c), or 56? And, if so, a schedule for the intended filing?

After discovery has been completed, the parties will be in a better position to determine whether the filing of dispositive motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 is appropriate in this case. h. 1. What are the relevant issues? Whether plaintiff is entitled to $15,777.00 in additional costs associated with its

contract to remove fender piles, because of the defendant's alleged delay in issuing both a Notice to Proceed and a 401 Permit; 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to $19,837.00 in additional costs associated with its

contract to remove and replace a cathodic protection system, because of delays it allegedly encountered due to its unanticipated discovery and excavation of underground bonds between utility systems; 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to $365,628.02 in additional direct costs, indirect

costs, impact and delay costs associated with its construction contract at the C-17 Alter Maintenance Shops at March Air Reserve Base. Complaint at ¶ 23.

i.

What is the likelihood of settlement?

Settlement of this lawsuit does not appear likely at this time. However, the parties will 2

Case 1:07-cv-00080-MCW

Document 7

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 3 of 5

explore settlement options as the parties conduct discovery.

j.

Do the parties anticipate proceeding to trial?

If dispositive motions are not filed, and the matter cannot be resolved through settlement, trial will be necessary. If dispositive motions are filed, and a trial is necessary to fully decide this case, the parties propose that the trial be held four to six months after the Court shall have ruled on such motions. The parties expect that a trial would last approximately one week. The parties do not request expedited trial scheduling. The parties request that the trial be conducted in Los Angeles, CA. k. Are there special issues regarding electronic case management needs?

The parties have no special issues regarding electronic case management needs. l. Is there other information of which the Court should be aware at this time?

There is no additional information of which the Court should be aware at this time. m. What is the proposed discovery plan?

The parties intend to conduct simultaneous discovery through interrogatories, requests for admission, requests for production of documents, and/or depositions. The parties propose the following discovery schedule: Exchange of Initial Disclosures Close of Fact Discovery Expert Reports Exchanged Expert Rebuttal Reports Exchanged Deadline for Expert Depositions July 16, 2007 February 1, 2008 April 1, 2008 May 1, 2008 June 2, 2008

3

Case 1:07-cv-00080-MCW

Document 7

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 4 of 5

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM Assistant Director

William L. Bruckner WILLIAM L. BRUCKNER BRUCKNER & WALKER 4550 Keasny Villa Rd. Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92123 Tele: (858) 565-8300 Fax: (858 565-0813 Attorney for Plaintiff

May 29, 2007

/s/ David M. Hibey DAVID M. HIBEY Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W., Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307-0163 Fax: (202) 514-8624 Attorneys for Defendant

4

Case 1:07-cv-00080-MCW

Document 7

Filed 05/29/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on this 29th day of May, 2007, a copy of the foregoing "Joint Preliminary 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. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. s/ David M. Hibey