## In the Un ited S tates Cou rt of Federal Cl aim s

No. 0 7- 16 5 C (Fi le d J un e 2 5, 2 01 3)

HERNANDEZ, KROONE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plai nt iff

,

v.

THE UNITE D STATES,

Defen da nt

. )

) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

By it s RCFC 59 m ot io n, fil ed Apr il 24

, 20 13

, (ECF No. 20 2) de fen da nt se ek s

reco ns id erat io n of $9 ,36 6.0 0 award ed to pl ai nt iff in th e co rrec te d jud gm en t, en te red Apr il 5, 20 13 (ECF No. 20 0)

. Thi s su m rep res en ts

, in pa rt, th e $7 ,98 5 in vo ic e Pal m Sp rin gs Pav in g su bm it te d to Hern an de z, Kro on e an d Ass oc ia te s, In c. (HKA) fo r th e

ex tra wor k it pe rfo rm ed to co rrec t a pa rk in g lo t ap pe aran ce pr ob le m cau se d by th e

ag gr eg at e th e Co rp s of Eng in eers (COE) ha d req ui r e d b e us ed in pa vi ng th e lo t.
Her na nd ez

, Kr oo ne & Ass oc s., In c. v. Uni te d St at es , 11 0 Fed

. Cl

. 49 6, 51 7- 18

, 52 1-

22 (2 01 3)

. HKA ad de d it s 15 % m ark -u p to th e $7 ,98 5 Pal m Sp rin gs in vo ic e pl us 2%
fo r it s b on d t o b rin g t he to ta l am ou nt to $9 ,36 6.0 0. Id

.

Defen da nt se ek s reco ns id erat io n of th e $9 ,36 6 award ed be cau se HKA ha s no t,

to da te

, pa id Pal m Sp rin gs fo r th is wor k an d de fen da nt as se rts HKA do es no t

cu rren tl y owe P al m

Sp rin gs for th e wor k i t p erfo rm ed

.

Defen d a n t i s c o r r ect on ly wit h res pe ct to th e fact th at HKA ha s no t, to da te

, pa id th e Pal m Sp rin gs in vo ic es th at it co nt in ue s to rece iv e. Id

. at 51 8. Howev er, as th e tra ns cri pt ci ta ti on s whi ch HKA su bm it s in it s r e s p o n s e (ECF No. 20 9) to
de fen da nt ’s RCFC 59 m ot io n de m o n s t r a te

, HKA reco gn iz es th at it ha s in cu rred a

co nt ract ua l li ab il it y to pa y Pal m Sp rin gs fo r th e ex tra wor k pe rfo rm ed an d th at it wil l

pa y Pal m Sp rin gs whe n it reco ve rs th e am ou nt in th is li ti ga ti on

. It is es ta bl is he d th at
th is fo rm of “ co nd it io na l li ab il it y ” su ffi ces , whe n act io n s o f t he go ve rn m en t cau seha rm to a su bc on tra ct or , t o sa nc ti on a su it by a p r i me co nt ract or ag ai ns t th e Uni te d

St at es to reco ve r su ch co st s in cu rred by a su bc on tra ct or

. W .G. Y at es & So ns Co ns tr

. Co

. v. Ca ld er a , 19 2 F.3 d 98 7, 99 1 (Fed

. Ci r. 19 99 ). The re is no lo gi cal reas on why
th e sa m e pr in ci pl e wou ld no t be ap pl ic ab le to a su it for an eq ui ta bl e ad jus tm en t. It
is cle ar th at th e co st in a sp eci fic am ou nt ha s b een in cu rred an d HKA h as ag reed to

pa y Pal m Sp rin gs whe n th e su m is reco ve red fro m th e Uni te d Stat es

. Thi s is un li ke
th e ci rcu m st an ce in SAB Co ns tr

., In c. v. Uni te d St at es , 66 Fed

. Cl

. 77 (2 00 5)

– ci te d by de fen da nt

, whe re on ly a po te nt ia l li ab il it y was in vo lv ed

. Here a sp eci fic ad di ti on al

co st ha s be en es ta bl is he d. Delh ur In du s., In c. v. Uni te d St at es , 95 Fed

. Cl

. 44 6, 45 4 (2 01 0)

.

Defendan t as se rts

, ho wev er, th at HKA do es no t cu rren tl y owe Pal m Sp rin gs fo r th e ad di ti on al wor k cau se d b y t h e ag gr eg at e sp eci fie d by th e COE be cau se of a rel eas e ex ecu te d by Pal m Sp rin gs or be cau se th e Cal ifo rn ia st at ut e of li m it at io ns

pr ov id es HKA wit h a de fen se to an y cu rren t su it by Pal m Sp rin gs on t h e s p e c i f i c

co nt ract ua l li ab il it y

. It was de te rm in ed th at no rel eas e co ve rs th e sp eci fic co nt ract ua l

li ab il it y in vo lv ed

. Her na nd ez
, Kr oo ne
, & Ass oc s. , 11 0 Fed

. Cl

. at 52 2. Defen da nt ’s

Ru le 59 m ot io n pr ov id es no ba si s su pp or ti ng reco ns id erat io n of th is de te rm in at io n. As fo r th e Cal ifo rn ia st at ut e of li m it at io ns , th e op in io n in qu es ti on no te s th at HKA’ s ack no wled gm en t of th e li ab il it y , un de r Cal

. C i v

. P r oc

. Co de § 36 0, can se rv e to

rev iv e an en fo rcem en t act io n if t h i s po ss ib il it y were req ui red in or de r fo r HKA to

reco ve r th e su m fro m th e Uni te d St at es in th is li ti ga ti on

. Id

. Defen da nt qu es ti on s th e

ap pl ic at io n of § 36 0 in th at th e p r o v i si on req ui res th at th e ack no wled gm en t “ [i]s

co nt ai ne d in so m e wri ti ng .” In th is m at te r HKA’ s ack no wled gm en t co m pr is ed

te st im on y ta ke n un de r oa th an d reco rd ed in a writ te n tra ns cri p t w i th th e rep or te r

cert ifyin g in writ in g th at th e “ reco rd is a co rrec t tra ns cri pt of th e pr oc eed in g.” RCFC

80 .1(e ). Thi s wou ld a p p e a r cl earl y to sa ti sf y th e § 36 0 req ui rem en ts if su ch

sa ti sf act io n wer e req ui red to reco ve r th e am ou nt in th is li ti ga ti on

. Se e Dea rb or n v

. Gra nd Lo dg e o f A.O.U.W

. , 13 8 C al . 65 8, 7 2 P . 15 4 (1 90 3)

.

In a “ Rep ly” (ECF No. 21 0)

, fil ed Ju ne 2 5

, 20 13

, de fen da nt ob jects to

co ns id erat io n of HKA’ s (Ri ch ard Hern an de z) de cl ar a ti on , i nc lu de d wit h pl ai nt iff ’s Opp os it io n (ECF No. 20 9) to de fen da nt’ s Mot ion fo r Re co nsi de ra tio n (ECF No. 20 2)

. Defen da nt qu es ti on s th e ab se nc e of a m ot io n fo r le av e to su bm it th e do cu m en t at th is

st ag e in th e pr oc eed in gs

. Tech ni cal ly, th e fil in g of a rep ly in th is ci rcu m st an ce al so

req ui res a m ot io n fo r l e a ve as th e Ord er (ECF No. 20 3) pu rs ua nt to RCFC 59 (f)

-2-req ue st in g th e fil in g of a res po ns e to de fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n di d no t

al so req ue st th e fi li ng of a rep ly.

As it is co ns id ered th at th e reco rd

, wit ho ut fu rth er sup pl em en ta ti on , su pp or ts

reco ve ry of th e am ou nt s award ed to HKA an d pl ai nt iff ha s es ta bl is he d no vi ab le ba si s f o r r eco ns id erat io n, it is ORDERED th at le av e is GRANTED fo r th e fil in g of

de fen da nt ’s Rep ly (ECF No. 21 0) an d d efen da nt ’s Rul e 5 9 M ot io n i s DENIE D. 1 /

s/ James F. Mer ow Ja m es F. Mero w Sen io r Ju dg e

As HKA’ s (Richar d Her

nandez) decla

ration, in writing

, makes it clea r that HKA will pay 1 /

Palm Springs the amount in question, in the interest of justice, if it wer e deter

mined that the exis ting

rec ord does not sa tisfy the provisions of § 360 and that such sa tisfaction wer e re quired for HKA’ s

rec overy in this m atter, the n in this circumstance , the dec lara tion is receive d in evidence

.

-3-