[brief] [...]’S RIPENESS ARGUMENT IS LEGALLY FLAWED, AS [...] HAD AN “ENFORCEABLE RIGHT” ON ITS NON-PAYMENT BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM YEARS AGO (Pa21, Pa44)  Arc incorrectly believes “Arc had no claim for unpaid monies until [...] (the contractor) obtained final judgment in an arbitration with [...] (the owner) three months after the PTA Arbitration hearings concluded. ”  Opp. at 34.  If Arc were truly waiting for the [...] Arbitration to end for its claim to be ripe, then Arc can only be entitled to—at most—the reward [...] received therein (minus reconciliations/deductions for costs/expenses, etc.).  In the [...] Arbitration, [...] received $435,087.70 from the Owner.  Pa921.  Yet, in the Second Arbitration, Arc demands $2.1M, which exactly mirrors its alleged claim in the First Arbitration that “Arc is currently owed $2.1 million by the owner on the Hackensack Project. ”  Pa201 ¶ 46.  It is obvious that the “ripeness” argument is nonsensical, and Arc could have asserted—and did assert—a $2.1M claim against [...] in the First Arbitration, as the Project had finished long ago (in December 2020, over four-and-a-half years ago).  See Metromedia v. Hartz Mountain, 139 N.J. 532, 535 (1995) (finding claim accrues when party has “an enforceable right,” which arises “immediately upon completion of the [contractual] services”).  Moreover, the Hackensack Project Subcontract between [...] and Arc was not a “pay-if-paid” subcontract, and so Arc’s non-payment claim against [...] was not sitting “unripe” until [...]’s judgment against [...].  See JPC Merger Sub v. Tricon Enters, 474 N.J. Super. 145, 164 (App. Div. 2022) (holding contract must contain “clear and unequivocal language that unambiguously sets forth the parties’ intention and agreement that owner payment is a condition precedent to the general contractor’s obligation to pay the subcontractor”).  Thus, Arc’s nonpayment claim against [...] under the Hackensack Project Subcontract ripened when Arc completed its work at the Project (December 2020) and [...] allegedly failed to pay Arc its contract balance, sometime in December 2020 or shortly thereafter in early 2021.  Finally, the timing of the awards undermines Arc’s “ripeness” contention.  [...] received the [...] Arbitration award on September 15, 2023.  Pa922.  Meanwhile, Arc continued to argue its Hackensack claims and defenses in the First Arbitration, until “the hearings were deemed closed on November 28, 2023. ”  Pa569.  It was not until after the Arbitrator hit Arc with a $4 million judgment that Arc, once again, demanded $2.1 million from [...] for the Hackensack Project. \(^5\)  The timing is not mere coincidence, but rather represents a calculated decision by Arc to wait-and-see how the Arbitrator ruled in the First \(^5\)  A Second Arbitration would provide Arc a double-recovery on Hackensack.  The Arbitrator awarded [...] $0 on its Hackensack claim, which must have been due to Arc’s offsetting counterclaim for unpaid work.  If Arc can now pursue its $2.1 million claim again, then it stands to reap a windfall, getting both a $899,051.20 “credit” in the First Arbitration and a $2.1 million claim in the Second Arbitration.  Arbitration before re-springing the claim on [...] as post-judgment leverage.  Thus, the legal question is not one of ripeness, but rather is one of purposeful claim-splitting (or, possibly, res judicata).