United States District Court, D. New Jersey
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.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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.
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.)
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).
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.)
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.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
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.
Standard for Summary Judgment
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).
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.) ...