Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gtg Construction Co., Inc. v. Goel Services, Inc.
Citation: Not availableDocket: Civil Action No. 2012-1129
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; September 5, 2012; Federal District Court
Original Court Document: View Document
G.T.G. Construction Co. Inc. filed a lawsuit against Goel Services, Inc. and others, seeking over $130,000 for unpaid services and equipment provided for a construction project at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. G.T.G. worked under an agreement with Goel, which was subcontracted by Lagan Virginia LLC, the main contractor. Additional claims were made against Zurich American Insurance Company for a payment bond related to the project. Goel Services filed a motion to stay the case, arguing that G.T.G. should first exhaust administrative dispute procedures outlined in Lagan's contract with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). G.T.G. countered that no such terms were included in its agreement with Goel and that any administrative procedures in Goel's agreement with Lagan did not apply to G.T.G. The Court found that Goel failed to provide evidence supporting an arbitration agreement with G.T.G. or that G.T.G. was bound by Lagan's contract terms. Consequently, Goel's motion to stay the litigation was denied. G.T.G. detailed a timeline of its work, including a proposal, daily work orders, and invoicing, asserting that it had been partially paid but was owed a remaining balance of $130,514.26 due to non-payment by Goel after mid-November 2011. G.T.G. brought forth a breach-of-contract claim and an alternative quantum meruit claim against Goel, along with a payment bond claim against Lagan and Zurich. Goel does not adequately address GTG’s argument regarding the existence of a contract formed by the Proposal, Purchase Order, and Job Work Orders, merely denying the allegations in a footnote. Importantly, Goel fails to identify any 'flow-down' or 'pass-through' provision in its agreement with GTG, which would link it to the dispute-resolution terms in the separate agreement between Lagan and MWAA. Without evidence supporting its claim that GTG is bound by these procedures, the Court denies Goel’s Motion. Following Goel's Motion, GTG sought a default judgment, asserting that Goel's Motion to Stay was not a responsive pleading, thus failing to timely respond to the Complaint. Although a motion to stay is typically not classified as a responsive pleading under Rule 12(b), federal courts may consider such motions to enhance judicial efficiency and reduce potential conflicts. Given that Goel's Motion to Stay was timely and indicated engagement with the lawsuit, the Court finds that entry of default judgment is inappropriate and excuses Goel’s failure to file a timely response. Consequently, the Court orders: 1) denial of Goel’s Motion to Stay; 2) denial of GTG's Motion for Default Judgment; and 3) requirement for Goel to file a responsive pleading by September 19, 2012.