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.

Alpha Painting & Construction Co., Inc. v. Delaware River Port Authority of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

June 26, 2019

ALPHA PAINTING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant.

          PETER J. TORCICOLLO JENNIFER A. HRADIL KEVIN W. WEBER GIBBONS, PC ONE GATEWAY CENTER NEWARK, On behalf of Plaintiff

          STEWART JOHN GREENLEAF, THOMAS J. ELLIOTT, ELLIOTT GREENLEAF PC, UNION MEETING CORPORATE CENTER V, On behalf of Defendant.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Presently before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff, Alpha Painting & Construction Company, Inc. (“Alpha”), for summary judgment in its favor on its due process and equal protection violation claims against Defendant, Delaware River Port Authority (“DRPA”). For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiff's motion will be granted.

         BACKGROUND

         For a full recitation of the facts of this case, the Court incorporates its 45-page Opinion filed on September 23, 2016 (Docket No. 37), which was issued after a four-day bench trial. This Court found that officials of the DRPA acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable when it awarded Corcon Inc. (“Corcon”), and not Alpha, Contract CB-31-2016, a $17 million contract to continue a restoration and painting project on the Commodore Barry Bridge (the “Contract”). The Court held that DRPA's determination to award Corcon the Contract was irrational because it arbitrarily deemed Alpha to be a non-responsible bidder after DRPA violated its own procurement rules to recraft Corcon's bid into the lowest responsive and responsible bid. The Court enjoined DRPA from proceeding on the Contract with Corcon, and directed DRPA to award the contract to Alpha, which the Court found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in accordance with DRPA's procurement rules. (Id. at 42-43.)

         DRPA appealed the Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed this Court's finding that DRPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the contract award process. The Third Circuit reversed the order directing that DRPA award the Contract to Alpha, and remanded the case for the entry of a more limited injunction to enable Alpha to be restored to competition. See Alpha Painting & Construction Co. Inc. v. Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, 853 F.3d 671, 674 (3d Cir. 2017).

         On remand, the Court Ordered a rebid on a new contract for the Commodore Barry Bridge painting project. (Docket No. 68.) The Court also permitted Alpha to file an amended complaint, which it did. (Docket No. 70.) DRPA moved to dismiss Alpha's amended complaint, and the Court granted DRPA's motion as to Alpha's claims under New Jersey's and Pennsylvania's sunshine laws, but denied it as to Alpha's claims for violations of its due process and equal protection rights, as well as for its common law claim regarding DRPA's arbitrary and capricious actions on which the Court has already ruled in Alpha's favor. (Docket No. 79.)

         Because there has been a trial on the merits of Alpha's claims, the Court has made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the Court has awarded Alpha injunctive relief for its common law claim against DRPA, Alpha has moved for summary judgment on its remaining two claims based on the existing record. DRPA has opposed Alpha's motion.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         Because Alpha has brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of its constitutional rights, this Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction over Alpha's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

         B. Standard for Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that the materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, or interrogatory answers, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

         C. Analysis

         For its due process and equal protection violation claims, Alpha is seeking a determination as to liability, as the Court already provided the requested remedy of injunctive relief for Alpha's common law arbitrary and capricious claim against DRPA. Alpha also seeks attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The factual record is complete as a result of the Court's trial on the merits, which was consolidated with the hearing on Alpha's preliminary injunction motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). (See Docket No. 37 at 8.) ...


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.