EDVA Dismisses Quantum Meruit Claim as Irreconcilable With Breach of Contract Claim and Also Dismisses Claimed Private Right of Action to Enforce Alleged FAR Violation
By Neil Lowenstein
Judge Turk, Senior District Judge for the United States District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, issued a recent opinion in Suleyman Civiv v. UXB International, Inc., Civil Action No. 7:12-cv-290 [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers] dismissing the plaintiff subcontractor's claim against the defendant prime contractor on a federal project that the prime contractor was liable under a quantum meruit (or implied contract) theory and the claim that the prime contractor was liable to the subcontractor for having violated the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Respecting the quantum meruit claim, the court noted that the subcontractor had pled a valid and binding express contract, and that the prime contractor had acknowledged that express contract as part of its motion. Because the parties were in accord that they remained in a contractual relationship at all relevant times, the court held there was no basis for implying a contract, and so dismissed the quantum meruit claim.Respecting the FAR violation claim, the court noted that the FAR does not provide for a private cause of action, and that it was therefore clear that a violation of the FAR, standing alone, could not give rise to a private cause of action. Because of this the court also dismissed the FAR violation claim. Of note, this same rationale would seem to apply to similar type claims, such as allegation of breach of the Federal Prompt Payment Act (a seemingly increasingly popular subcontractor assertion) - as the Magistrate Judge Prince ruled in an earlier EDVA action; it is will be interesting to see how Judge Turk's rationale is applied for future cases.
View more from Virginia Construction Law News and Notes.
The information in this blog is for general information about the topics discussed only; it is not legal advise and is not intended (nor should it be construed) to suggest any similar outcomes in any other cases. Individual case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case. No exchange of information associated with this blog in any way establishes (nor shall it be construed to establish) an attorney-client relationship.
Sign in with your Lexis.com ID to access Real Estate Law resources on Lexis.com or any of these Mathew Bender
Real Estate Law publications.
Click here to order Property Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications.
Click here to order Real Estate Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications.
View the LexisNexis
Catalog of Legal and Professional Publications
here for a list of available LexisNexis eBooks.
Click here to learn more about
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.