Court Opinion

ID: 9380813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 15:00:08.470228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:27.760992
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeal of -                                   )
                                               )
 RLB Contracting, Inc.                         ) ASBCA No. 62779
                                               )
 Under Contract No. W9126G-17-C-0043           )

 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                   Michael H. Payne, Esq.
                                                  Casey J. McKinnon, Esq.
                                                   Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC
                                                   Philadelphia, PA

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.
                                  Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
                                 Clark Bartee, Esq.
                                  Engineer Trial Attorney
                                  U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston

                 OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SWEET

        On February 21, 2023, the appellant filed an out-of-time request to enlarge the
deadline to file its response to the government’s motion for summary judgment
(response). On February 24, 2023, the government filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute, or in the alternative, to rule on the government’s motion for
summary judgment as presented. For the reasons discussed below, the appellant’s
motion is granted, and the government’s motion is denied.

       STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION

   1. On December 15, 2021, the government filed a motion for summary judgment.

   2. Throughout 2022, the appellant moved for enlargements of time to file its
response. The government assented to those motions, and we accordingly granted
each motion.

    3. On May 9, 2022, the government moved to stay proceedings in this appeal
pending the resolution of its summary judgment motion. On May 13, 2022, we
granted that motion, but permitted the appellant to conduct limited discovery regarding
the government’s prior knowledge of the location and depth of a pipeline.
   4. On November 14, 2022, we issued our final order on the appellant’s motions for
enlargements of time to file its response. In that order, we granted appellant an
enlargement of time to file its response to February 7, 2023.

   5. Appellant failed to file a response or seek an enlargement of time by
February 7, 2023. Two weeks later, on February 21, 2023, appellant filed an out-of-
time motion for an enlargement of time to file its response to February 24, 2022. The
government opposes that motion.

   6. On February 24, 2022, the appellant filed its response to the motion for
summary judgment.

   7. Also, on February 24, 2022, the government moved to dismiss for failure to
prosecute, or in the alternative, to rule on the government’s motion for summary
judgment as presented.

                                        DECISION

        We deny the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or to rule
on its summary judgment motion as presented and grant the appellant’s motion to
extend the deadline to file its response. Under our rules:

                Whenever the record discloses the failure of either party to
                file documents required by these Rules, respond to notices
                or correspondence from the Board, comply with orders of
                the Board, or otherwise indicates an intention not to
                continue the prosecution or defense of an appeal, the Board
                may, in the case of a default by the appellant, issue an
                order to show cause why the appeal should not be
                dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Board Rule 17

       Here, there was no failure to prosecute. Taking over a year to respond to a
summary judgment motion certainly seems excessive (SOF ¶ 2). However, it does not
constitute a failure to prosecute because—except for two weeks in February 2023—the
appellant had sought and been granted enlargements. Thus, the appellant complied
with the Board’s orders (SOF ¶¶ 2, 4-5). Indeed, having assented to all of those
motions for enlargements, the government is in no position to turn around and
complain about those enlargements (SOF ¶ 2). 1 While there was a two-week period in

1
    Likewise, having successfully moved the Board to stay proceedings in this appeal
         (SOF ¶ 3), the government cannot complain that the appellant’s failure to
                                             2
  February 2023, when the appellant did not comply with a Board order by filing its
  response or seeking an enlargement (SOF ¶¶ 4-5), 2 that was not so extensive as to
  indicate an intention not to continue the prosecution of this appeal. In fact, issuing an
  order to show cause would serve no useful purpose because the appellant already has
  filed its response, thereby evidencing its intent to prosecute this appeal (SOF ¶ 6).

         Nor does that two-week period justify ruling on the government’s summary
  judgment motion as presented because the government has not shown any prejudice
  from that delay (gov’t motion to dismiss). Moreover, due to that lack of prejudice, the
  appellant is entitled to an extension of the deadline to file its response.

                                        CONCLUSION

          We deny the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or to rule
  on its summary judgment motion as presented. We grant the appellant’s motion to
  extend the deadline to file its response. Accordingly, the appellant’s response is
  accepted, and the government shall file any reply within thirty days of the date of this
  order.

           Dated: March 9, 2023

                                                     JAMES R. SWEET
                                                     Administrative Judge
                                                     Armed Services Board
(Signatures continued)                               of Contract Appeals

           engage in discovery constituted a failure to prosecute. There was a narrow
           exception to that stay for the appellant to obtain discovery regarding the
           government’s prior knowledge of the location and depth of a pipeline (SOF
           ¶ 3). To the extent that the appellant failed to request that discovery, our order
           did not require the appellant to seek such discovery (SOF ¶ 3). Thus, the
           appellant’s failure to seek such discovery did not violate a Board order, or
           otherwise indicate an intent not to prosecute this appeal. Moreover, any failure
           to take advantage of that discovery opportunity benefited—instead of
           prejudicing—the government. Thus, any failure is not a basis for refusing to
           consider the response.
  2
      We caution the appellant that it has a duty to comply with Board-imposed deadlines
          or seek enlargements. Even though there was no prejudice in this first instance
          of failing to do so, prejudice may result from repeated failures to comply with
          deadlines or seek enlargements.
                                                3
 I concur                                           I concur

 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                                J. REID PROUTY
 Administrative Judge                               Administrative Judge
 Acting Chairman                                    Vice Chairman
 Armed Services Board                               Armed Services Board
 of Contract Appeals                                of Contract Appeals

      I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62779, Appeal of RLB
Contracting, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

       Dated: March 9, 2023

                                                 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
                                                 Recorder, Armed Services
                                                 Board of Contract Appeals

                                             4