United States of America for the use of J&L Paving LLC v. Rockford Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
United States of America for the )
use of J & L Paving LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, ) 3:18-cv-156 JWS
)
vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION
)
Rockford Corporation and ) [Re: Motion at docket 22]
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., )
)
Defendants. )
)
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 22, Plaintiff moves to strike defendant Rockford’s counterclaim.
Rockford responds at docket 23. Plaintiff replies at docket 25. Oral argument was not
requested and would not aid the court.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded
the prime contract to construct a replacement fueling station at Tinker Air Force Base to
Rockford. Rockford purchased a Miller Act payment bond from Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co. Rockford subcontracted the pavement work on the project to J&L Paving
LLC. (“J&L”). Plaintiff further alleges that J&L completed the pavement work, but when
Case 3:18-cv-00156-JWS Document 28 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 3

it submitted its final application to be paid, Rockford did not pay all of what was owed.1
Plaintiff seeks to recover the money it alleges should be paid. Count One of the
Complaint alleges a breach of contract by Rockford. Count Two seeks recovery based
on the theory of quantum meruit. Count Three seeks to recover on the payment bond.
Rockford’s Answer denies that J&L performed its subcontract obligations and
asserts that “J&L breached the subcontract on numerous occasions . . . . 2 Rockford’s
Counterclaim seeks a declaration that J&L materially breached the subcontract so that
Rockford owes nothing to J&L. The Counterclaim mirrors Rockford’s defense to
Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim that it was J&L which breached the subcontract. The
Counterclaim raises no issue not raised in the Answer. It merely recasts the defense
that J&L breached the subcontract in the form of a counterclaim. In sum, the
Counterclaim is redundant and unnecessary.
Plaintiff’s briefing demonstrates that allowing the Counterclaim to go forward
would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings in this case. Mindful of the admonition
in Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 to construe and apply the civil rules “to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” the court concludes that the
Counterclaim should be stricken.
1Doc. 1.
2Doc. 14 at ¶¶ 12 and 17.
2
Case 3:18-cv-00156-JWS Document 28 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 3

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER
For the reasons above, the motion at docket 22 is granted. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that defendant Rockford shall file an Amended Answer which does not
include a counterclaim within 7 days.
DATED October 16, 2018.
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Case 3:18-cv-00156-JWS Document 28 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 3