Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00583-58/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION

CORPORATION, a Missouri

corporation,

NO. CIV. S-05-583 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY

DISTRICT, a municipal utility

district; UTILITY ENGINEERING

CORPORATION, a Texas 

corporation,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court are SMUD’s motions for partial

summary judgment against Fru-Con and Travelers Insurance. In its

motion against Fru-Con, SMUD asserts that termination of Fru-Con

was proper under General Condition 36 of the construction contract

due to Fru-Con’s failure to replace defective concrete in “Section

C” of the construction foundation, which SMUD had rejected under

General Condition 24. In reviewing the construction contract,

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 513 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

however, the court observes that Special Condition 35 provides that

Fru-Con was prohibited from deviating from the Design Engineer’s

specifications. The court questions, therefore, whether such a

deviation itself could permit Fru-Con’s termination under General

Condition 36. In other words, could Fru-Con be terminated under

General Condition 36 simply for violating Special Condition 35? Or

is the contract written so that if Fru-Con violated Special

Condition 35, SMUD’s only recourse was to reject the work under

General Condition 24 and that, at that point, if Fru-Con failed to

replace the rejected work SMUD could terminate Fru-Con under

General Condition 36? 

To facilitate the court’s resolution of this issue, it

requests supplemental briefing. The court ORDERS:

1. SMUD and Fru-Con are ORDERED to file supplemental

briefs, no longer than 10 pages in length, addressing

the issue set forth above;

2. SMUD’s brief is to be filed no later than 15 days from

the date of this order;

3. Fru-Con’s brief is to be filed no later than 15 days

from the date of SMUD’s filing of its brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 19, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-00583-LKK -GGH Document 513 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 2