Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00434/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00434-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
EAI International
Defendant
NRA Construction Company, Inc.
Plaintiff
James E. Zoucha
Defendant

Document Text:

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

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

Defendant James E. Zoucha was erroneously named as James E. 1

Zourcha in the Complaint. (Decl. of Karen Shanbrom in Supp. of Zoucha’s

Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 1.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the )

Use and Benefit of NRA ) 2:06-CV-434-GEB-GGH

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

EAI INTERNATIONAL; and JAMES E. )

ZOURCHA, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff NRA Construction Company, Inc. (“NRA”) moves for

summary judgment on its Miller Act claim against Defendant James E.

Zoucha (“Zoucha”), a surety who issued a bond securing payment for 1

paving work NRA performed on a federal government construction project

at Travis Air Force Base. NRA declares that it completed all paving

work required under its subcontract with Defendant EAI International,

Case 2:06-cv-00434-GEB-GGH Document 58 Filed 12/11/07 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

NRA objects to Esparza’s declaration, arguing that “Esparza’s 2

declaration does not state his personal knowledge of any alleged

defective or incomplete work by NRA. Instead, his knowledge is based

solely on documents he claims to have received from the Government.”

(NRA’s Reply at 4:15-18.) Esparza declares that “the matters stated in

[his] declaration are of [his] own knowledge.” (Esparza Decl. ¶ 2.)

NRA also argues that Esparza’s declaration contains hearsay. (NRA’s

Reply at 4:15-18.) Hearsay is “a statement . . . offered in evidence to

prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). “A

‘statement’ is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct

of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Fed. R.

Evid. 801(a). NRA has not shown this evidence is offered for hearsay

purposes.

Summary judgment standards are well-known and need not be 3

repeated here.

2

but received only partial payment. (Decl. of Gerald Young in Supp. of

NRA’s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶¶ 8, 11.) However, Zoucha presents the

declaration of EAI’s president, Daniel Esparza, who declares that

“[t]he Government rejected NRA’s paving work as inadequate and not in

compliance with the plans and specifications for the project.” (Decl.

of Daniel Esparza in Opp’n to NRA’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Esparza

Decl.”) ¶ 6). Further, Esparza declares that “[t]he Government needed

to retain a replacement paving subcontractor to repair and complete

NRA’s scope of work.” (Id. ¶ 13). 2

The conflicting evidence concerns a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the work at issue was completed and/or

defective that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. See United 3

States ex rel. Tenn. Valley Marble Holding Co. v. Grunley Const., 433

F. Supp. 2d 104, 116-17 (D.D.C. 2006) (denying plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment on Miller Act claim because issue of fact existed

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00434-GEB-GGH Document 58 Filed 12/11/07 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

whether plaintiff’s work was defective or incomplete). Accordingly,

NRA’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00434-GEB-GGH Document 58 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 3