Prime Mechanical Service, Inc. v. Federal Solutions Group, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AFFORDING LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's amended complaint shall be filed no later than August 31, 2018. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 15, 2018. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PRIME MECHANICAL SERVICE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
FEDERAL SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-03307-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CALIFORNIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS;
AFFORDING LEAVE TO AMEND
Re: Dkt. No. 10

12
13

Before the Court is defendant Indemnity Company of California’s “Motion to

14

Dismiss,” filed July 2, 2018. Plaintiff Prime Mechanical Services, Inc. has filed

15

opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed

16

in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.

17

1. Contrary to defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s Miller Act claim is subject to

18

dismissal as time-barred, the Complaint does not establish “beyond doubt that . . .

19

plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.” See

20

U.S. ex rel. Air Control Techs., Inc. v. Pre Con Indus., Inc., 720 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir.

21

2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In particular, although plaintiff has

22

attached to the Complaint an invoice dated more than a year before plaintiff filed the

23

instant action, (see Compl. Ex. C); see also 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(4) (providing Miller Act

24

claim “must be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor

25

was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action”), the

26

Complaint alleges plaintiff performed work within the statutory period (see Compl. ¶ 12).

27

2. For the reasons stated by defendant, plaintiff has failed, however, to show it

28

“furnished labor or material.” See 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(1) (providing cause of action to

1

“person[s] that [have] furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a

2

contract for which a payment bond is furnished”). In particular, plaintiff alleges it provided

3

“design services” (see Compl. ¶ 14; see also id. ¶ 12 (alleging plaintiff “prepared the new

4

HVAC design for the project”)), and, as defendant points out, such work does not

5

constitute “labor” under the Act, see U.S. for Use of Barber-Colman Co. v. U.S. Fid. &

6

Guar. Co., 93-CV-1665, 1994 WL 108502, at *1-3 (4th Cir. March 31, 1994) (unpublished

7

table decision) (finding creation of “control drawings” for HVAC system “not within the

8

definition of ‘labor’ under the Miller Act”).
In light of plaintiff’s assertion in its opposition that it also “performed on-site field

10

verification, on-site coordination with other trades, and attended on-site meetings” (see

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Opp. at 7:19-20), the Court will afford plaintiff leave to amend to allege the “on-site” work

12

it performed, see U.S. for Use & Benefit of Olson v. W.H. Cates Const. Co., 972 F.2d

13

987, 990 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding “skilled professional work which involves actual

14

superintending, supervision, or inspection at the job site” constitutes “labor” under Miller

15

Act) (internal quotation and citation omitted).1 Additionally, in its Amended Complaint,

16

plaintiff should clarify whether the above-referenced invoice sought payment for work that

17

was to be, rather than had been, performed, as well as the nature of any work alleged to

18

have been performed within the statutory period.

19

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff’s Complaint is

20

hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall be

21

filed no later than August 31, 2018.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: August 15, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

25
26
1

27
28

As the parties have not addressed the question of whether the on-site work, to
the extent described in plaintiff’s opposition, qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act, the
Court makes no determination herein as to that issue.
2