Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01089/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01089-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 07cv1089 BTM(WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE UNITED STATES FOR THE USE

OF PLAINTIFFS ECS FIRE SECURITY,

INC., a California corporation;

ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEMS,

INC., a California corporation

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv1089 BTM(WMc)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

v.

BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERS,

INC., a Missouri corporation doing

business as Burns & McDonnell; ST.

PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE

COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation;

DOES 1 through 20, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a

claim. Defendants motion is DENIED.

I. FACTS

In or about March 2005, Plaintiffs ECS Fire Security, Inc. and Electronic Control

Systems, Inc. (collectively “ECS”) agreed to provide services and materials to H.R. Redondo,

Inc. (“Redondo”) in connection with a project known as FS5007-NASNI C40 Hangar/ATCT

(the “Project”) at North Island Naval Air Station in San Diego, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7-8.)

Redondo was a first-tier subcontractor hired by prime contractor Burns & McDonnell

(“Burns”). (Compl. ¶ 2.) St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company is the surety that

Case 3:07-cv-01089-BTM-WMC Document 12 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv1089 BTM(WMc)

issued Burns’ payment bond in connection with the Project. (Compl. ¶ e.) 

The work to be performed by ECS consisted of installing all fire alarm systems for the

Project. (Compl. ¶ 7.) According to the Complaint, the last day on which ECS performed

“Additional Original Work” on the Project was on August 22, 2006, when ECS prepared and

sent a report to Burns regarding repairs that ECS performed on a fire alarm panel system.

(Compl.¶ 40.) The repairs consisted of fixing ground fault problems that ECS believes were

caused by the electrical contractor. (Compl. ¶¶ 39-40.) 

ECS claims that several invoices it submitted to Redondo for payment for “Original

Work” and “Additional Original Work” remain unpaid. (Compl. ¶ 42.) The total of the unpaid

invoices is $120,823.50. (Id.) 

ECS filed its Complaint on June 14, 2007. ECS asserts a claim for recovery under

the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3133. 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiffs

filed suit more than one year after the last day it performed original contract work on the

Project. Relying on the exhibits to the Complaint, Defendants argue that the work performed

by ECS in August, 2006, was not part of the original contract, but, rather, repair work

subsequent to the completion of the original work.

Under 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(4), ECS was required to file suit “no later than one year

after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the

person bringing the action.” The timeliness of this action depends on whether the work ECS

performed in August, 2006, was performed “as a part of the original contract or for the

purpose of correcting defects, or making repairs following inspection of the project.” United

States ex. rel. Austin v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 337 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1964) (internal

quotation marks omitted.) 

Some of the exhibits to the Complaint suggest that ECS completed its performance

of the original contract in February, 2006. For example, on February 6, 2006, Brandon

Case 3:07-cv-01089-BTM-WMC Document 12 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 07cv1089 BTM(WMc)

Ensley of Redondo e-mailed Michael Koermer of ECS, requesting that he “consider finishing

up anything that is part of the original scope of work so that it might help us to get paid

faster.” (Ex. G.) Koermer replied that he would try to get the final fire alarm test reports to

Burns by the next day and stated: “[T]his is the final item. (that I know off [sic]) Any future

issues (not part of original contract) will not be performed until payment for change orders

have been approved.” (Id.) Exhibit O also seems to support Defendants’ position that ECS’s

performance of the original work was completed prior to August, 2006. In Exhibit O, Tracy

Addis with the Navy e-mailed Duane Pettis of Burns on July 28, 2006, and explained that

there were reports that the C-40 Hangar Fire Alarm Panel trouble alarm was going off

intermittently. Addis wrote, “Please reply per warranty.” 

However, the factual determinations of what the exact scope of ECS’s original work

was and whether that work was performed, accepted, and completed are more appropriate

for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 19, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01089-BTM-WMC Document 12 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 3