Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. As the court in this case explained, a motion for reconsideration should only be filed after a period of “intense introspection that cautiously considers the strictures” on reconsideration. Here, in denying the government’s motion to reconsider an order dismissing counterclaims, the court effectively found the government had not engaged in that period of “intense introspection.” Indeed, the court found that the government’s motion lacked “nuance” and failed to distinguish between three related but distinct concepts: the discovery rule, equitable estoppel, and equitable tolling.
Lodge Construction, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 13-499
Background
Lodge Construction had a contract with the Army Corps of Engineers to rehabilitate a levee. The Corps terminated the contract for default. Lodge filed suit with the Court of Federal Claims challenging the termination. The government asserted counterclaims against Lodge, alleging fraud, double-billing, and improper pass-through claims.
The court dismissed one of the government counterlaims alleging a violation of the Contract Dispute Act’s anti-fraud provisions. The court found the claim was time barred. The CDA require\s a “determination”—as opposed to “claim”—of fraud be made within six years. Because more that six years had passed without a “determination,” the CDA fraud allegation was barred by the statute of limitations.
The case proceeded to trial on other claims, and the court found that Lodge had violated the False Claims Act. Thereafter, the governmetn moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing the CDA fraud claim.
Legal Analysis
- Motions to Reconsider Are Disfavored – The court noted at the outset that motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Where litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they shold not, without good reason, be able to battle for it again. A motion to reconsider should be preceded by a period of intensive introspection which cautiously considered well-established strictures governing reconsideration.
- Reconsideration in this Case Was Unwarranted – Even if the court were to entertain the govenment’s motion, the government had still not convinced the court the the CDA claim was timely. It was still not clear when the statute of limitations for the claim began to run. The government contended the statute had been tolled by fraudulent concealment. But the court found that the government was conflating three different concept: (1) the dicovery rule, the date on which a claimaint discovers it has been injured; (2) equitable estoppel, when a party has prevented another from suing in time, and (3) equitable tolling, when a party can’t obtain information to decide whether it has been injured. The court reasoned that the government’s claim of fraudulent concealment was a version of equitable estoppel. But the government’s motion argued, without nuance or distinction, different elements of the discovery rule and equitable tolling.
Lodge is represented by Michael H. Payne of Cohen Seglias Greenhall & Furman and Edward Parrot of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald. The government is represented by John H. Roberson, Steven Hough, Ioana Cristei, Deborah A. Bynum, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., and Brian M. Boynton of the Department of Justice.
