MBR Construction Services, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 25 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/3/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
..u.S. DIS TRleT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUItilS1RICT OF MARYLAND
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southel'n Di\'ision
ZOlbJUtl- 3 P S: 30
CLERK'S OFFICE
MBR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,

AT GREENBELT

*

INC.,

BY __

....

nFriiTY

*
Plaintiff,

*
Case No.: G,JII-15-1-t

\'.

*
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
CO., et aI.,

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORnER
PlaintifL MIlR Construction
2015 against Sigal Construction
Insurance Co. (collectively.
construction

Scrviccs. Inc. (OoivlBR"')initiated this action on January 5.
Oo
(OoSigaI and Sigal's surcty, Libcrty Mutual
)

Corporation
Oo

OoDelendants

).It)r money allegcdly O\ved to MIlR tt)r its worK on a

project. on which Sigal servcd as the gcncral contractor and i'"IBR scn'cd as an

electrical subcontractor.
pcnding thc exhaustion

S""

ECF No. I, On February 22. 20 I 6. the Court stay cd this action

of certain contractual

disputc rcsolution proccdurcs.

between Sigal and thc owncr ofthc project. the Prince Gcorgc's
C'PGCPS"
Mill.

or "Owner")

County Public School Systcm

relatcd to delays on thc projcct. S"" .\/HR COIISlr. S"n's .. /IIC. \'. Uh"r/,'

Ins. Co .. No, G.I\I-15-14.

Motion lor Reconsidcration
no hearing is ncccssary.

namely. litigation

S""

pel1inent 1~lctsand proccdural

2016 WL 727107 (D, Md. Fcb. 22. 2(16). MIlR has tiled a

of that dccision. ECF No. 25. Thc I'vlotion has bccn fully brieted and
Local Rule I 05.6 (D. Md.). Thc Court assumcs Knowledgc ofthc
history containcd

in its carlicr opinion and "'ill discuss only those

facts that are relevant to thc resolution

of this Motion. For the reasons that i;)lIo\\'. the Motion is

denied.
Although

MBR does not cite to a particular

the Court"s prior decision. see ECF No. 25 at 4-5.1
in this case. MBR"s Motion is controlled
That rule provides.

Federal Rule permilling
because no linaljudgment

by Rulc 54(b) ofthc

reconsideration

of

has been entered

Fedcral Rulcs ofCi\'ill'roccdurc.

in relevant part:

IA)ny order or other decision. however designated. that adjudicates fewcr than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of Jewer than all the parties ...
may be
revised at any time bel;1I"(:thc entry of a judgment adjudicating all thc claims and
all the parties' rights and liabilitics.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b): see also Ccair
2928.2014

WL 4955535.

COII/II/erciai/Juilders.
the appropriate

\'.. //'Morgal1 Chase /Jal1k. iV,/" No. CIV.A. DKC J:;-

at *1 (D. Md. Scpt. 30. 2014) (citing Faye//el'ille

/I1C 936 F.2d 1462. 1469-70 (4th Cir. 1991)) C'1t is \\ell-cstablishcd
..

Rule under which to tile motions

Rule 54(b)."). The power to grant relicfunder
district court:'

/l1res/ors r.

AII/. Cal10e Ass

'111'.

fiJr reconsideration

of an interlocutory

Rule 54(b) "is commilled

that

order is

to the discretion

of the

Murphy Farll/s. /I1C. 326 F.3d 505. 515 (4th Cir. 2003)

(citing Moses II. COl1e Mell/. 1I0sp. r. A1erclII:r Com/. Corp .. 460 U.S. I. 12. 103 S.C!. 927
(1983)).
The United States Court of Appeals
standard governing

a motion f()r reconsideration

1472. Courts in this district have. however.
Rules 59(e) and 60(b) Jar guidance
at *1 (citing Ake\'ll. LLC
Thus, "'m)ost
1

fiJr the Fourth Circuit has not detined the precise

I'.

under Rule 54(b). See Fayelle\'ille.

li'equently

looked tlnnml the standards

936 F.2d at
articulated

in

such motions. See Ce:::air. 2014 WI. 4955535.

in considering

,Ididas Alii .. Il1c.. 385 F. Supp. 2d 559. 565-66 (ivI.D.N.C. 2005».

courts havc adhered to a fairly narrow set of grounds on \\ hich to reconsidcr

thcir

Pin cites to documents filed on the CUlIl1"S electronic filing system (eM/EeF) refer to lhe page numhers generated

by that system.

2

interlocutory
situations:

orders and opinions. Courts will reconsidcr an interlocutory
(1) there has been an intervenin~ ~chan~e in controllin~
~

order in thc 1()llowing

- law: (2) there

is additional

evidence that was not previously available: or (3) the prior decision was based on clear error or
would work manifest injustice:'
Regell1s o(lhe

Ulli\' .

a motion I()r reconsideration

under Rule 54(b)). Importantly.

"a

is not proper where it only asks the Court to rethink its prior decision. or

prese'nts a better or more compelling
briefs on the matter:'
(E.D.N.C.

385 F. Supp. 2d at 565-66: .Iee aiso illlles ". 1Jd. or

.'I),s. ol.\/d. 121 F. Supp. 3d 50.+' 506-07 (D. Md. 2(15) (applying this

three-part test whcn cvaluating
motion to reconsider

Ake\'{{.

argument that the party could have presented in the original

Boykill A IIchol' Co. ". WOllg.

Mar. 20. 2(12): cf.' IIl1lchillsoll\'.

that "mere disagreement"

NO.5: I O-CV -591-FL. 2012 \\'1. 937182. at *2

SIO/oll.

994 F.2d 1076. 1082 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting

with the court's ruling does not support a motion to alter or amend the

judgment).
MBR first argues that reconsideration

is warranted because "a significant change in l~lctS"

occurred after brieting had concluded on DeICndants'
Stay this Action Pending the Exhaustion
Specifically.

Motion to Dismiss. or in the Alternative.

to

of Dispute Procedures (the "Motion to Dismiss/Stay").

after MBR filed its opposition

to the Motion to Dismiss/Stay.

had paid Sigal for multiple change orders that significantly
Sigal indicated. however. that it was withholding

it learned that I'GCI'S

increased MBR's contract amount.

$464.337 oCthat payment Ii'om MBR under a

provision oCthe contract that permitted Sigal to "withhold amounts otherwise due under thleJ
Subcontract

Agreement

may be responsible

... to compensate

Sigal Corcosts Sigal ... may incur Cor which

I MBR]

... :. ECF No. 7-2 at 2: see aiso ECF No. 25-2. ivlBR contends that. because

PGCPS has paid Sigal on these particular change orders. MBR's claim to the $464.337 is not an
"Owner-Related

Claim[]:'

see

ECF No. 7-2 at 8. and is thcrel()re not subject to exhaustion

3

under

the contract dispute resolution
Sigal's

withholding

procedures . .I'l'l' ECT No. 25 at 6-7. Alicr MBR bccamc aware of

of the $464.337.

count related to this paymcnt

withholding.

ECF Nos. 12 & 13. Both ofthcsc
merits-at

as wcll as a f\lotion I()I"Prc-Judgmcnt

motions \\'ere pending-and

thc limc the Court ruled on Dcfcndants'

withholding
Akl'l'(f.

it lilcd a Motion for I.cave to Amcnd its Complaint

of funds docs not constitute

"additional

385 F. Supp. 2d at 566. insofar as this evidence

ruling on Dclendants'
supplemcntal

Motion to Dismiss/Stay.

brieling in opposition

Parties'

contract and detcrmincd

the dispute resolution

Motion to Dismiss/Stay.

727107 at *3. MBR has provided

providcd

available."

MBR did not rcqucst ICa\'c to tile any
or othcrwisc

indicatc

ruling on that Motion.
the Court rcvicwcd thc language ofthc

that it rcquircd that MBR's

proccdures

that was not previously

Motion to Dismiss/Stay

that this change in facts should have altci'cd thc Court's
In ruling on Dcl'cndants'

In this scnsc. Sigal's

was bcforc thc Court prior to thc Court"s

Notably.

to Dclcndants"

Atlachmcnt.

were ruled upon. albcit not on thc

Motion to Dismiss/Stay.
cvidcncc

to add a

litigation against Sigal must yield to

for in thc contract. S"I' .\/BII

COlIS/I'.

S"n's .. 2016 WI.

no rcason for thc Court to rcthink that decision .. <;"" hi/chard

v. Wal Marl Slorl's. file .. 3 F. App'x 52. 53 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that \\hcn a motion t()r
reconsideration

"raiscs no new argumcnts.

legal issue or to 'changc
it should be pcnnitled

its mind.'

but mcrely rcqucsts thc district court to rcconsidcr

relief is not authorized.").

to pursue the prcsent litigation

lVIBR seems to arguc. howcvcr.

in a picccmcal

withholding.

a
lhat

Il\shion. sccking lirst thc

$464.337

that it alleges Sigal is wrongfully

whilc MBR's rcmaining

resolution

of the currently-pending

assuming

the languagc of the contract would allow I()r such fragmented

e1aims await

state court litigation bctwccn Sigal and PGCPS.'

E\'cn

litigation. thc Court may

While not explicitly stated as such. this is the only logical conclusion to be dr:l\\11 lhull MBR"s reliance on the
$464.337 as a "new fact""requiring reconsideration when it has alleged that it is "o\\'ed approximately S 1.175.595
for ... extra work approved by Signl and performed by MBR:" .(","('e ECF NO.1 at ~i16. Othcndsc.l\lBR is merely
restating already rejected arguments regarding whether these arc O\\llcr.J{L'hlted Claims.
.:!

4

stay an action in the exercisc of its discrction

as part of its inherent power to control its

0\\'11

dockct.} See Lamlis )'. N. A/1/. Co .. 299 U.S. 24S. 254. 57 S. Ct. 163 (1936). Courts lu\\'c found
such a discretionary
arbitration

COIl'.

\'.

("Enforccment

district court's
J

of agrcemcnts

discretion

to arbitrate

of non.arbitrablc

both arbitrable

a party in thc arbitration
that "staying

and nonarbitrablc
proccedings.

thc procccdings

...

rcsults").

This reasoning

pcmlitting

may rcquirc picccmcal

Alls/a/e Ins.

inadequate

litigation.

and thc

('0. 1'.

He/1/ingway /lollles I.Le.

at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 3. 2(12) (staying action \\ hich
claims. c\'cn though onc party to thc litigation was not

whcrc claims involved "samc nuclcus of l~lCts" and noting
cCl1l10my by pre\'cnting

I<lrluns" and "prc\'Cnts thc possibility

thc samc sct of l~lCts
of inconsistcnt

applics hcre: staying only somc of M I3R's claims against Sigal. \\ hile

others to procced. \\{)uld rcsult in unncccssary

contract disputc rcsolution

PGCPS,

11Ic.. 96 F.3d SS. 97 (4th Cir. 1(90) (citations

...

promotcs judicial

from being litigated in two scparatc

whilc othcrs arc not. See. e.g .. /1/1/.

claims or issues is a mattcr largcly within thc

to control its dockct."):

2.CY .00744-A W. 2012 WL 4748089.

involvcd

proecdurcs

COllljlll/eri::ed Ther/1/all/1/agillg.

decision to stay thc litigation

No.

whcre. for instance. somc claims arc subjcct to

or other informal disputc resolution

Recovery
omittcd)

stay to bc appropriate

proccdures

may bc pcrccivcd

picecmeallitigation.

Although

by MBR to bc impcrfect.

to resolvc thc Partics' disputc.~ Ifat thc conclusion

thc

thcy arc not

of the litigation between Sigal and

MBR is not madc whole by Sigal. i'vlBR can then move to lili the stay of this litigation.

The contract provides that "as a precondition to initiating Of~r actioJl ... against Sigal or its bonding company.
[MBR] agrees that it shall exhaust through Sigal the remedies available ullucr the Contract Doculllents for OwnerRelated Claims. including the initiation of litigation Of arbitration. as applicable. against OWllcr through Sigal." ECF
No. 7.2 at 8 (emphasis added).
J

~ For this reason, the Coun \\:ill deny MBR's alternate rcquest to lift the stay so that ilmay file suit against Sigal in.
state court and seek to consolidatc such all action with Sigal"s action against PGCPS .. ~'et!EeF NO.2:: at X-IO.
Notably. MBR has not cited any legal authority to support its position that it is entitled to such rclicfheyond the
argument already refuted. Moreover. contrary to Ml3R's contention. judicial ecollomy would not be scrvL'd by
pennitting it to attempt to consolidate its clnims with those Sigal has filed "gainst PGCPS insolilr as Sigal \\oull!
have the right to raise the same claims related to exhaustion of contractual disputc resolution procl..'dul'es in that
action. essentially putting the Parties in the position they wcre in when this action was initiated.

5

Finally. although MBR next argues that the Court elearly erred by misapplying
standard

the

for a motion to dismiss. see lOCI' No. 25 at 7. the Court ultimately did not construe

Sigal's l\'lotion as one to dismiss the Complaint.

but rather as one to stay the action pending

exhaustion

procedures.

of the contractual

727107 at *2 (assuming

presented

See ,lmR

truth of the filctS allcged in thc Complaint

would not be appropriate).
documents

dispute resolution

Relatedly.

outsidc of the plcadings.
during the mediation

COlISlr,

Sen's .. 2016 WI,

and coneluding

that dismissal

MBR argucs that it IVas improper It)r the Court to rely on
namcly. MBR's "rcqucst It))"equitable adjustment". that IVas

with I'GCI'S and Sigal. See it!. at * 3 n.4. It is IVorth noting. lirst.

that although a eoul1 is prohibited

Irom considering

a motion to dismiss. no similar restriction
motion to stay. Second. the Court's

most documents

outsidc of the pleadings on

exists with rcspcct to a court's considcration

reference to the request It)r equitable adjustment

on a
in a

footnote was not necessary to the Court's analysis: rather. the Court's decision to stay the action
was based on the Court's
Accordingly.
of Maryland.

Dated:

Junc

of the relcvant contract provisions.

it is hereby ORDEIU:n. by the Unitcd States District Court lor the District

that MBR's

J

interpretation

Motion lor Reconsidcration.

ECF No. 25. is DENlEn.

&/c--

.2016

GEORGE J. IIAlEL
United States District Judge

6