Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

9 0 Case 1:045cv-001963-GIVIS D0cume_nt0225Â¥2 0 Filed 98/30/2006 _ Page 1 0fQ -
9 9 TIGHE,9COTTRELL9 8{LOGAN, P;_A9 9 ‘ I- 9 9 _I
_ 9 0 9 9 9 9 _ 9 - 9 -Att0rneys99e·t_L0aw 9 9 0 9 9 99 _ 99
09 9 99 9 9 99 FlRSTFEDERAL FLAZA _ 9_ 9 9 9
I9 __ __ 9 BOX91Q3190_I_ 99 I - 9 A ‘ _
I 0 9 9 99 V1/lLMIi\lG_TON,DELA_WARE 79899 9 9- , ‘9 9, 9 9 _ 9I I - 9
9 _ 9 0 99 9 -TeIeph0neINymben‘ (3O2)_658g64OO9 · 0 _` _ -9 _ 9
9 9 0 9 9 _9 TeleccppiérNumb9en0 (302)’658—9836‘ ” 990 9 9 9 0 9 9 9
_ 99 9 9 -L email:p.c0ttrelI@IaMc!.¢pm9 ` _ _ _9 __ 9 9 9
_B:=eANcH0#F:cEs: 9 99 `9 9 9 9I I9 I 9 I9I 9 __ _° I 9I
19 wssmymua 9 9 9 1020-0 sAsTJ0m¤A ROAD 99 9 g017spR:NGGARuENsTRE1.=n0 9 _ 9
p;0900><20a _ 9 9 - , 09 ;$Um·=:9s50 1 9 ‘ 9 9PH:LA0&1.PM:A,PA1013090004 _ 9 9
w000s70wrv9 01.100000 9 9 Towson, 001021200 99 21&>s0490101 _ 9 9 9 A
0:s09ra0¢0211- 9 - 9 9 9 9 9 , -0 4g09sg0-r041—9 _ _ 0_ 0 09 _j 9 0 0 99 _
‘ #ri»sF0¤SrMrLE¤#i¤¢wG¤0LA1i9M4é»1LII 9999 9 9 9 9 9 - I 9 99
I 99 - Mech-924,2004 _9 9999 I- l -9_‘ 0*9 I _99· 99 `9 9 ? 9
I- N *9 Il`- _-_` ` ` lr ` ` .. J` I- 9 ‘ I- 9. l I I
99 9 99 i 9915M0u11tainVieir$(_RQad0 I 9 -19* I' - Q 9 L99 9 9 9I 9 9 I I 9‘ j
- 99 9 ‘.Wa10ren,NJO79O691I9 9 09_ 9 9. __ 9_ ‘L·9 9 9 9-9 9 I 9
9 I ‘__I 9, ci¢y.6f:4e@0;pk9 _ _ 99f 9 QufFi]gNg_I66-QI6 -9 9 ._9‘ -9 9 ‘ L 9`-9_ 99; I_ I 9 9. 9 _
, II _ IDeq;0MI$.99CaYa11ar0:;II,I9_I9 Q 0 _ 999999 I ‘_--- I9 I I I_ I _I ‘
9_ 9 I9 9 I in yespohsefo jz0urIl0tt0;99d0téd.MaxclQII1_$I,- v§9hi0hIE0d0iia1 I1is0fa0ce9 I
9 I Company (€?Eede1·al") argues 1;}q9é11;‘1§he99City_0f9New;1ri 9pméénf<>b1ig¤fi¤¤0¤md¤r90¤¤¤ B<>i¤d`·’? Wé diS9e2r<=¢9-0lW<2 d¤9¤¢i$¤6W1¢dg¢9ih&iF¤d¢r010h¤S- 4 9 0
0 9 a1te1*i12;tii?e1yI denied 1iIg1bi1ity9imde; {he Bond T0 the ex§e;1t9that0NewdrI< hee eetisfied the 9 9 I 0 9
9 99 9- Ne%¤;0rk9 nddcé Beth M0 C01itf00iihg,I1009 apd I 9 _ 9
I _ _0PI€dQ1'8,1I well bCyO1'1dIth§5I 9se$Jen9¢1aiy ie1{11i9ip1*Ose1*ibed b_yI9£he9QQ11t:act. On Nevembex-21_,0992O03999 , _’ 9 0
09 _Newarkpr0`videdv¢;iltenn0ticeefiisit;’;e11t_tpfce1mi_nafe9Dvxkinl099W10ifte1j9I110ticé___¢fte11fr1inati0n 9 ‘
, 9 9 wasissued on February 3, ZOQ49. _FUf{hE7I’1'1'1DIl'€§, Newark did q0mp1y_withth‘e cC0%1ferenee_ 9 9—9· 9 9 _
9 91:equi1{eme11tsei_f010tI1inthe Bcmdg Idthe N0vember92§‘91etie:, Newark §tated9"[3]s pr9m{ided_in _ = 9
the [Durkin] ;5_e10f0Tm§¤C9® Ib011¢§_I§l¢Id With9¥h·‘¤I Gi1y9Wq=99¤f¢ 1°€Ql1¢$€i11g @@*9 ?}9901if9¥9¥i9@-b€Ih¢1d · I `
includingSuyetyrepgesenfatives,9-[I)L1rki11],URS CqrpomtionH1ieptes`enia;ive9s_ the City of 9 ‘ 9 _
I- 0 Newa;k...The9 intent 0f'ghis_meeti1ig wilibetod9iscySSmet110dS_f0t[Dui·ki110]’0s feithfu1c0mp01et9i0n 9 I 9 _ 9
9 I ofthis c0i1’qrac¥.?’ 1zi;ggu2§ge`mi1‘;6rs,>thut 0fthc99Bdnd, _ I9‘‘I 9 - ` -0 _ 09 099 9 l 9 9
I· 9 II The-90c6nfete0eIe igelcl01;IDeeemberI999dL1;ii1gI1;he_`fiféee1¤9 daype§idId9p;¢§ctibé;d byjdzhe I' I I `9
_ 9 Bond. It wz;s9i11di_c2ited that themeetipg was in9the_i910;teiest 0f9sett:le11ie11t; i11deed,theIpu1jpcse was I I 9
9 _ to 5Iet0t1ethe90uts€andi0g issees and formulate 09,pmf0r000¤¢p10%000 of the project. Tfhai;9 99 9 0 - 9

_ y` y Case 1:04-cvi—OO1I63-G|\/IS Document 225-2 . Filed 08/30/2006 Page 22of 2 22
2.2 -Ms.E}lenC2val1ero . _ 2 `_ Y. I2 2 " - . 22 I
. (March 24,2004 2 - I - 2 ‘ 2 2 - 1 2. I . 2
I - I 2 diseiissiorrs duringthe meeting-wereIeonsidered “iH§l.C&¥`1iSSi`blé’, ¢¤uss¢1.rQ>r Newérk_does_notI _ . 2 `I
. comrediet the terms ofthe Bond, riordoes it render themeeting irrapplicablej By yonr1ogie,,a 2 I 22
t _ 2 second co11fererree2woui;d be required for‘tl1e2-same purpose! 22 i _ 22 _- _i I " _2 . I 2 I
2 I 2 I Durkin repeetediy reiiised to Icorrrrwietex the proj est eridrefnseci to iproteot: eontpieted.wori<;.- 2 I I
. 2 - 2 .We do not- dispute the-existence of theseifety end cont]-iet2 proVisi_ons‘ cited- in yo.ur-`ietter,2 but we -2 2 2.
; do dispute I·their_`reieyer1ee, '1"he2issueso_raisedIby Durkin were addressed by Newsrk sr;d..the design 2_ . _
. I teatrn Dirrkin wesirrstrrtcted- toIproceed_vrith constrnetion. .2 tourism refnisedto do so fend has _ . 2 ‘ r t . 1
2 r2 in rr`o2wsy cooperated2v»dthNewar1<. - ‘2 ~ _ 2 I -r2_,· ‘ ,.2`2 _ " 2; - 2
_. - IrI. - I-r‘ The r~;p6¤.rrpm drsgsry-1i;¤hércis.ps win-be ss;1r¢SSed`g¤ssr-wpsrsie ¢pyé;,`L2bu;2Ii2sgy`;1.i_I 1 Q 2 _ .
_ I say that NeiK(;»tr1 . . 2 - . intent of this report was to see if the eonstritotebiiityrand.performztuoe of thereservoir eouid be I - “` 27
. 2. ‘ 2 `*im.p2roved2iwith minor design o1re11ges_g"’»_2_Drirkin, 1;oweyer,.insists_2th&ittheIreser¤roirtcai1;1o2t be .2 j 2. t y
‘ y I " constmoted.2 2Clesr1y, Dnrkin end its expert E¥1`I‘Q Eooki11g’st2 two different 2-issuess Richardson ` 2 2 .
. . ‘< questions stabi1ity=of2the emberdcment; aiti1o1tgh21fre proyides ;1o4Ir>ssis_.for2his`c_onoerrrs,_ ` ` t`I_ -I `I 2
‘ 2 _ 2 i11teresti1iglY,2111o11ths2 earlier, ernother é11gine`er,retei21ied by etteiripted; to oonvince2NeW&rk; ~. I_‘. _
- . 2- - 'jtliat oomioeotiontjofthetenibsiqrrrrrerrt was not required beeeuse it yrss_ oyérdesignetir-22.2 22 v-2 jr .‘_ `. ~ .I -
II 2 I 2_ I 2_S_eotion1S.II2i.or`Ithe Geideraltjonditions, `sziews ?I -.._ ` __ 2 II 2 II
2. 2 -rterrnir1ate2it` the contractor persisteritly fails to perforngi theiyork,--disregerdsi tire.-aut11ority.of-the . ..i‘2 i -I 2 2
2 -2 * V engineer, or2_ot1j1erwise.vioIetes2 the .co1itreot assume-ss. -Dtirlgiti-yioiefedellpof those -prot/iSio1}s. J
2 jj -2 . 22 Newark properly terrnineted Durkiri and comp}ied‘.with.eI1 eppropriete provisions ofthe‘B.or1d-L ` _ I
2 - _I 2 I. ` “ I. " TIGI·IE.,` IIL. `_._j ._,I "’
. . .2 2 _ Pa;u1Q0ttrell. 2_ 2 Q l i. [ -_ r .
22 ` CiTYo.fNeW&rk`2 ”_ 2 --. 2 I - I. ‘ . .2 -2 ` 2
.2 ·2 .RogerAki¤,Esq. 2, U` _2 2. 2 ‘y22. 2 :2
. 22 . i 2Vietorie K. Petrone,2Esq, ` A . - [ I - ` 2_ ‘7_ 2 _ I. 2 . y L 2 ` .

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 225-2

Filed 08/30/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 225-2

Filed 08/30/2006

Page 2 of 2