Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SRC Constr. Corp. of Monroe v. Atlantic City Hous. Auth.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 2, 2013

SRC CONSTRUCTION CORP. OF MONROE, Plaintiff,
v.
ATLANTIC CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants

CONDON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Brian K. Condon, Esq., Nanuet, New York, Counsel for Plaintiff SRC Construction Corp. of Monroe.

PARKER McCAY PA, Dana B. Ostrovsky, Esq., Marlton, New Jersey, Counsel for Defendant Atlantic City Housing Authority.

SUAREZ & SUAREZ, Joseph M. Suarez, Esq., Jersey City, New Jersey, Counsel for Defendant Lindemon, Winckelmann, Deupree, Martin, Russell & Associates, P.C.

OPINION

Page 797

HONORABLE JOSEPH E. IRENAS, Senior United States District Judge.

In this diversity suit, the parties dispute who is responsible for the extended delays that occurred during the construction of an assisted living facility in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which allegedly resulted in several million dollars in additional costs. Defendant Lindenmon, Winckelmann, Deupree, Martin, Russell & Associates, P.C. (" Lindemon" ) presently moves for summary judgment, asserting that all of Plaintiff's claims against it are barred by New Jersey's economic loss doctrine. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion will be denied.

I.

The following facts are undisputed for the purposes of this Motion. In late 2001, Defendant Atlantic City Housing Authority (" ACHA" ) awarded a lump sump contract to Plaintiff SRC Construction Corp. of Monroe (" SRC" ) to build the John P. Whittington Senior Living Center. In April, 2002 ACHA and SRC entered into a contract for the construction of the facility, whereby SRC would be the general contractor for the project. (Condon Cert. Ex. A)

This is mainly a suit between SRC and ACHA. Against ACHA only, SRC asserts claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, wrongful termination of the contract and conversion. Similarly, against SRC only, ACHA asserts counterclaims of breach of contract, negligence, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and conversion.

However, the instant Motion does not implicate the claims between SRC and ACHA. Rather, Defendant Lindemon, who was the architect on the project-- and undisputedly had a contract with ACHA (Condon Cert. Ex. B), but not SRC (Rosciszewski Cert. Ex. C)-- moves for summary judgment on the two claims SRC asserts against it: (1) breach of express and implied warranties (Count 2 of the Complaint), and (2) negligence (Count 5).

Both claims are based on SRC's allegations that Lindemon caused significant construction delays by:

o " fail[ing] to provide the necessary building permits to SRC in accordance with their duties, responsibilities, and obligations" (Compl. ¶ 29);
o " submitting] drawings on multiple occasions to the Building Department that were deemed Non-Code Compliant" (Compl. ¶ 118(i));
o " fail[ing] to respond in a timely manner to Plaintiff's multiple requests for pertinent information on numerous issues" (Compl. ¶ 118 (iii)); and
o " repeatedly providing] defective verbal approvals of change orders to Plaintiff, only to have these change orders rejected by [the Housing Authority] ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.