Free Motion to Consolidate Cases - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00373-MCW

Document 6

Filed 05/04/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-373C (Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams)

MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-376C (Judge Robert H. Hodges)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Defendant respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 42.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), to consolidate the above captioned cases for all purposes. Counsel for plaintiff in 05-373 has indicated that he may oppose this motion to consolidate; counsel for plaintiff in 05-376 has indicated that plaintiff does not oppose consolidation. In May 2001, Manhattan Construction Company ("Manhattan") entered into a $20,716,000 contract with the United States Department of Agriculture for the construction of laboratory facilities at the Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland.1 In July 2001, Manhattan entered into a

For the purposes of this motion only all factual allegations conatined in the two complaints are deemed to be true.
1

Case 1:05-cv-00373-MCW

Document 6

Filed 05/04/2005

Page 2 of 3

subcontract with Caigeann Mechanical Company Inc.("Caigeann"), and in September 2001 Caigeann entered into a subcontract with TBN TRA/Thermatch ("TBN") for certain construction services. Manhattan submitted claims to the contracting officer upon behalf of Caigeann and TBA. Those claims were subsequently denied. On March 16, 2005, Henry Danforth, Esq., with Watt, Teider, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, filed case number 05-373C seeking approximately $40,000 as compensation for changes to the scope of TBN's work. That case was assigned to Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams. Also on March 16, 2005, Adam C. Harrison, Esq., filed case number 05-376C seeking approximately $64,000 as compensation for changes to the scope of Caigeann's work. That case was assigned to Judge Robert H. Hodges. Based on the present status of the litigation of these cases and the undersigned's review of the complaints, and the claims on which they are premised, conducting discovery, obtaining expert opinions, and trying the issues raised in the two complaints before two different judges will not result in the speedy and cost effective resolution of these matters. Determining whether to allow consolidation is within the discretion of the court. Rule 42(a) sets forth the standard: "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may ... order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." The appropriateness of consolidating actions depends on whether the interests of judicial economy are served. Here the interests of judicial economy will surely be served if all of the pending matters arising out of the contract to construct the Human Nutrition Research Center are resolved in a single proceeding. 2

Case 1:05-cv-00373-MCW

Document 6

Filed 05/04/2005

Page 3 of 3

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant this motion. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KIESLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/ Harold D. Lester, Jr. HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. Assistant Director /s Leslie Cayer Ohta LESLIE CAYER OHTA Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 307-1011 (202) 307-0972 (Fax) May 4, 2005 Attorneys for Defendant

3