Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01744/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01744-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for

the use and benefit of RO’S

PRECISE PAINTING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CNA SURETY CORPORATION, an

Illinois corporation; DICK

CORPORATION/MATT CONSTRUCTION, a

Joint Venture,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1744 OWW WMW 

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE AND ORDER

STAYING ACTION UNTIL

7/26/07

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

May 4, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Dowling, Aaron & Keeler, Inc., by David D. Schneider, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Preston Gates & Ellis LLP by Hector

H. Espinosa, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants, specially

for CNA Surety Corporation. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Ro’s is a duly-licensed painting and decorating

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 9
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

contractor. Dick/Matt is a general contractor. Dick/Matt

entered into a written contract with the United States of

America, by and through the General Services Administration,

Contract Number GS-09P-01-KTC-0071 (hereinafter, the “Prime

Contract”), by the terms of which Dick/Matt agreed to construct a

public building known as the United States Courthouse, Fresno,

California (hereinafter, the “Project”). Under 40 United States

Code Sections 3131-3134, Dick/Matt, as principal, and CNA, as

surety, executed and delivered a payment bond to the United

States of America, whereby said Dick/Matt and CNA bound

themselves jointly and severally for the purpose of allowing a

joint action or actions against any or all of them and bound

themselves in a sum of money equal to the contract price.

2. Thereafter, in or about January or February 2004,

Dick/Matt and Plaintiff entered into a contract, pursuant to

which Plaintiff furnished labor, material, services and equipment

in the execution of the work required in the Prime Contract,

including, but not limited to, the painting, wall coverings, and

high performance coatings at the Project (hereafter, the

“Subcontract”). By the express terms of the Subcontract,

Dick/Matt and Plaintiff agreed that the contract shall be subject

to California law. Separate and apart from the labor, material,

services and equipment Plaintiff furnished under the scope of

work under the Subcontract, between 2004 and 2006, Plaintiff

furnished additional labor, material, services and equipment to

the Project that was not within its original scope of work under

the subcontract, pursuant to approximately 36 oral modifications

to the Subcontract in the form of oral change orders between it

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 9
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

and Dick/Matt (the “Oral Modifications”), categorized as follows:

a. Oral change orders specifically requested and

authorized by Dick/Matt which have been approved by the General

Services Administration. Pursuant to these change orders,

Plaintiff performed work at the Project including: repainting

finished surfaces, painting faux finish in restrooms, painting

exposed steel tubes and inbeds in the roof, painting wood ceiling

grids, and painting sally port columns. This work was not within

Plaintiff’s original scope of work under the Subcontract. 

Pursuant to these change orders, Dick/Matt owes Plaintiff

$82,573.15;

b. Oral change orders specifically requested and

authorized by Dick/Matt, pursuant to which Plaintiff performed

$27,189.26 of work that was beyond its original scope of work

under the Subcontract, including the painting of wood ceiling

grids, painting of custom wood grille ceiling in main lobby and

Time & Material increases for miscellaneous extra work requested

by Dick/Matt. Despite ordering Plaintiff to perform this

additional work, Dick/Matt claims it has failed to obtain

approval and authorization from the General Services

Administration for the performance of this work and, solely on

this basis, refuses to pay Plaintiff for the work until such

approval is obtained; and 

c. Oral change orders specifically requested and

authorized by Dick/Matt pursuant to which Plaintiff performed

$89,556 of work that was beyond the original scope of the

Subcontract. Specifically, Plaintiff repaired the damage

Dick/Matt, other subcontractors, and governmental tenants at the

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 9
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

4

Project caused to the work Plaintiff had already completed under

the terms of the original Subcontract by repainting and touching

up dozens of areas of Plaintiff’s past-completed work. Dick/Matt

claims it has failed to obtain approval and authorization from

the General Services Administration for the performance of this

work and, solely on that basis, refuses to pay Plaintiff for the

work until such approval is obtained.

3. Under the Subcontract, Plaintiff was required to

perform the aforementioned work regardless of whether written

change orders issued or the General Services Administration

approved it, or else face the risk that Dick/Matt would bring

suit against it for breach of the Subcontract. Dick/Matt has not

paid Plaintiff for any of the labor, material, services and

equipment it provided pursuant to the Oral Modifications, which

totals $199,318.41. 

IV. Related Case Statement.

1. This is another Fresno Courthouse construction case and

the parties have analyzed and discussed their respective

positions. They believe it would be conducive of judicial

economy and efficient for conservation of the parties and the

Court’s resources to stay this case in accordance with the stay

previously effectuated by the Court in related cases. 

V. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. To be determined. A supplemental joint scheduling

conference statement containing the information sought in this

category will be completed and submitted after Dick/Matt and CNA

appear in this action. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 9
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

5

VI. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Ro’s Precise Painting, Inc., is a California

corporation.

2. CNA Surety Corporation is an Illinois corporation

licensed to do business as a surety in the State of California.

3. Dick Corporation/Matt Construction, is a joint

venture that constructed the Fresno County Federal Courthouse. 

4. The parties had a written subcontract for Ro’s

Precise Painting, Inc., to perform paint work at the project. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. To be determined. A supplemental joint scheduling

conference statement containing the information sought in this

category will be completed and submitted after Dick/Matt and CNA

appear in this action. 

VII. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. To be determined. A supplemental joint scheduling

conference statement containing the information sought in this

category will be completed and submitted after Dick/Matt and CNA

appear in this action. 

B. Contested. 

1. To be determined. A supplemental joint scheduling

conference statement containing the information sought in this

category will be completed and submitted after Dick/Matt and CNA

appear in this action. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 5 of 9
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

6

VIII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. To be determined. A supplemental joint scheduling

conference statement containing the information sought in this

category will be completed and submitted after Dick/Matt and CNA

appear in this action. 

IX. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

X. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The case will be stayed through and including July 26,

2007, to enable the parties to explore non-judicial resolution of

the case. The parties are directed to advise the Court whether

the negotiations have been successful, and if not, to contact the

Courtroom Deputy for a new Scheduling Conference date following

July 26, 2007. 

XI. Trial Date.

1. Ro’s has not demanded a jury trial. It is undetermined

whether either Dick/Matt or CNA will demand a jury trial. This

information will be included in the parties’ Supplemental Joint

Scheduling Conference Statement. 

2. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. To be determined. A supplemental joint scheduling

conference statement containing the information sought in this

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 6 of 9
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

7

category will be completed and submitted after Dick/Matt and CNA

appear in this action. 

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XII. Settlement Conference.

1. Not scheduled at this time. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIII. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. To be determined. A supplemental joint scheduling

conference statement containing the information sought in this

category will be completed and submitted after Dick/Matt and CNA

appear in this action. 

XIV. Related Matters Pending.

1. Those will be listed in the future. 

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

XV. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVI. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01744-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/08/07 Page 9 of 9