United States District Court, D. Columbia.
LIMBACH COMPANY LLC, Plaintiff: Jeffrey C. Seaman, WHITEFORD,
TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Bethesda, MD.
Document Nos.: 6, 7, 9
CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff's Motion For Default Judgment
action arises out of a contractual dispute in which Limbach
Company, LLC (" Plaintiff" ) brought suit alleging
that Ten Hoeve Brothers, LLC (" Defendant" ) failed
to perform its contractual obligations. After Defendant
failed to respond to the complaint, Plaintiff moved for
default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55(b)(2). Because Plaintiff has met its evidentiary burden,
the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
November 18, 2011, the District of Columbia government
entered into a contract with Smoot/Gilbane Joint Venture
(" General Contractor" ) for construction work at
Dunbar Senior High School. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No.
1. On or about January 30, 2012, the General Contractor
entered into a subcontract with Plaintiff to complete certain
work, including plumbing infrastructure, on the project.
Id. ¶ 8. On or about October 13, 2012,
Plaintiff entered into a sub-subcontract with WL Gary
Company, Inc. (" Gary Co." ) for the completion of
certain plumbing work. Id. ¶ 9. On or about
November 12, 2012, Gary Co. entered into a
sub-sub-subcontract with Defendant. Id. ¶ 10.
sub-sub-subcontract obligated Defendant to, among other
things, install a rainwater harvesting system consistent with
the specifications set forth in the prime contract.
Id. ¶ 10. The prime contract, incorporated
through the subcontracts, required that the rainwater
harvesting system include the installation of a KriStar
FloGard Dual Vortex catch basin and required that no used
plumbing fixtures be employed in the installation.
Id. ¶ 10; Pl.'s Supplemental Br. and Mot.
ECF Nos. 9-2, 9-3. Gary Co. agreed to pay Defendant
$316,000.00 for the work. Pl.'s Supplemental Br. and Mot.
17, ECF No. 9-5. A change order increased the contract price
to $333,104.00. Craig Sasser Aff. ¶ 18, ECF No. 6.. As
part of its contractual obligations, Defendant entered into
purchase and/or service agreements with several vendors.
Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 1.
September 2013, Plaintiff and Gary Co. discovered that
Defendant had installed a non-conforming system and that
Defendant had failed to pay any of the vendors. Pl.'s
Supplemental Br. and Mot. 3, ECF No. 9. On November 5, 2013,
Plaintiff sent a letter of default demanding that Defendant
correct the non-conformities and pay the vendors.
Id. ; Pl.'s Supplemental Br. and Mot., ECF No.
9-7. Receiving no response, on November 19, 2013, Plaintiff
sent Defendant a letter terminating the contract. Pl.'s
Supplemental Br. and Mot., ECF No. 9-8. On or about July 14,
2014, Plaintiff and Gary Co. entered into an agreement
assigning from Gary Co. to Plaintiff all rights of action
against Defendant. Pl.'s Supplemental Br. and Mot., ECF
No. 9-9. In addition, Plaintiff satisfied the outstanding
claims by the vendors. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 17, ECF
No. 1. Plaintiff then resolved to the satisfaction of the
general contractor all issues related to Defendant's