EQUITRANS SERVICES LLC et al v. PRECISION PIPELINE, LLC

Filing 74

ORDER. For the reasons stated more fully in the Order filed herewith, Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration (Doc. 67 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 2/11/16. (jwr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EQUITRANS SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRECISION PIPELINE, LLC,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-1727
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
Plaintiffs’ have filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of this Court’s
December 31, 2015 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 63) resolving cross-motions for summary
judgement. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion insofar as it related to Precision’s counterclaims
for breach of contract and Equitrans’s alleged violations of the Contractor and Subcontractor
Payment Act. 1 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in all other respects. The
Court granted Defendant’s Motion with respect to the breach of contract claims asserted at Count I
of the Complaint that are not founded on breach of warranty or indemnity theories. With respect to
the breach of warranty claim in Count II of the Complaint, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion as
to the slides numbered “20” through “29” in Defendant’s Exhibit 9 (Doc. 43-31) and pertaining to
the Shultz, Marling, Ankrom, Raymont, Tennant, Minor, Efaw and Fairbanks properties as well as
Mileposts 0.26-0.53 and 0.33 at Underwood property. With respect to the indemnity claim in Count
III of the Complaint, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion as to all claims premised exclusively on
Equitrans’s first party losses and/or any losses incurred relative to the aforementioned slides
A complete factual history of this matter is set forth in the December 31, 2015 Memorandum
and Order.

1

numbered “20” through “29” in Precision’s Exhibit 9 (Doc. 43-31). In all other respects, Precision’s
motion for partial summary judgment will be denied. The instant Motion relates to the interplay of
the Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs’ with respect to Defendant’s counterclaims relating to the retainage and the Court’s finding that genuine issues of material fact preclude
the entry of summary judgment on the warranty claims. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration will be GRANTED.
As Precision acknowledges, the parties are in substantial agreement “on the premise that a
fact finder must determine whether Precision breached its warranty obligations before the parties’
respective rights regarding the retainage can be established.” Doc. 72 at ¶ 1. And as Equitrans
argues, “because a jury must decide whether Precision breached its warranty obligations, any claim
that [Precision] is entitled to retainage is entirely premature.” Doc. 71 at 1-2. It is worth noting that
the relief Precision sought in its counterclaims was immediate payment of the $987,875.20
retainage. See Defs’ Answer and Counterclaim Doc. 6 at ¶¶ 12 and 20.
The Court agrees that the ultimate decision regarding how the retainage will be paid out
must wait until the fact-finder resolves the issue of whether Precision breached its warranty
obligations. However, should there become a point in time, after the resolution of the warranty
issue, where Equitrans fails to honor its obligations under the parties’ contractual agreements, the
Court would be inclined to give Precision leave to reassert its counterclaims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 11, 2016

cc (via ECF email notification):
All counsel of record

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge