PRECISION METALS CORP. et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al
| PRECISION METALS CORP., ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI and THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI |
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, FRANK KENDALL, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, MICHELLE C. SKUBIC, JON L. LIGHTNER and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 1:2022cv01586 |
| June 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Beryl A Howell |
| Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. § 0701 Judicial Review of Agency Decision |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs (Canni, Todd) |
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DISMISSING this matter, without prejudice, pursuant to the plaintiffs' #20 Stipulation of Dismissal. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 24, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: defendants' response to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment along with a certified list of the contents of the administrative record relevant to this dispute due by 7/22/2022; plaintiffs' reply in further support of their motion for preliminary injunction, any response to defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and any cross-motion for summary judgment due by 8/5/2022; defendants' reply in further support of any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as well as any opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment due by 9/6/2022; plaintiffs' reply in support of any cross-motion for summary judgment and the parties shall jointly file an appendix containing copies of those portions of the administrative record cited or otherwise relied on in their briefs by 9/20/2022. (ztg) |
|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART plaintiffs' #17 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and AMENDING the SCHEDULING ORDER entered on June 12, 2022, upon consideration of the parties' submissions in support and opposition of the motion, as follows: 1) by July 22, 2022, defendants shall file any response to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment along with a certified list of the contents of the administrative record relevant to this dispute, see LCvR 7(n)(1); 2) by August 5, 2022, plaintiffs shall file any reply in further support of their motion for preliminary injunction, any response to defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and any cross-motion for summary judgment; 3) by September 6, 2022, defendants shall file a reply in further support of any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as well as any opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment; and 4) by September 20, 2022, plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of any cross-motion for summary judgment and the parties shall jointly file an appendix containing copies of those portions of the administrative record cited or otherwise relied on in their briefs, see LCvR 7(n)(2). As the Court explained in entering the scheduling order, dated June 12, 2022, consolidation of plaintiffs' request for extraordinary injunctive relief and any dispositive motions is warranted both to conserve limited judicial resources and provide expeditious resolution of the merits of plaintiffs' claims based on a single round of briefing and review of the administrative record. See Min. Order (June 12, 2022). Given defendants' representation, upon "further consultation" with the Defense Logistics Agency and other agencies, that compiling the administrative record relevant to the challenged debarment decisions may be accomplished more expeditiously than originally anticipated, see #18 Defs.' Response to Pls.' Mot. for Modification of Scheduling Order at 5; cf. #14 Joint Status Report at 2, good cause is presented to modify the previously entered briefing schedule, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (providing that scheduling order may be modified "for good cause and with the judge's consent"). Plaintiffs' renewed request for a bifurcated and more expedited schedule based on their assertion that irreparable harm will be compounded "within several weeks to approximately a few months at the most," #17 Pls.' Mot. to Modify Scheduling Order at 6, "if the status quo is maintained," id. at 2, is again denied given that the status quo has been in effect since May 2021 apparently due to plaintiffs' decision to wait almost a year prior to contesting formally their proposed debarment before the agency "while remaining barred from bidding on new government contracts for that entire period," Min. Order (June 12, 2022) (citing #1 Compl., Ex. 2 at 1; Compl. 48). Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 21, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
| Filing 19 REPLY to opposition to motion re #17 MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order filed by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 18 RESPONSE re #17 MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order filed by LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, FRANK KENDALL, JON L. LIGHTNER, MICHELLE C. SKUBIC, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Eiswerth, Christopher) |
| Filing 17 MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibit, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(Canni, Todd) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Responses to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment due by 8/8/2022; plaintiffs' reply in further support of their motion for preliminary injunction, any response to defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and any cross-motion for summary judgment due by 10/7/2022; defendants' reply in further support of any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as well as any opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment due by 11/7/2022; plaintiffs' reply in support of any cross-motion for summary judgment due by 11/21/2022; defendants' certified list of the contents of the administrative record relevant to this dispute due by 8/8/2022; parties to file jointly by 11/21/2022, an appendix containing copies of those portions of the administrative record cited or otherwise relied on in their briefs. (ztg) |
|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING, upon consideration of the parties' competing proposed deadlines submitted in their #14 Joint Status Report ("JSR"), the following SCHEDULING ORDER for further proceedings in this matter, consolidating consideration of plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and merits review: 1) by August 8, 2022, defendants shall file any response to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment along with a certified list of the contents of the administrative record relevant to this dispute, see LCvR 7(n)(1); 2) by October 7, 2022, plaintiffs shall file any reply in further support of their motion for preliminary injunction, any response to defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and any cross-motion for summary judgment; 3) by November 7, 2022, defendants shall file a reply in further support of any motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as well as any opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment; and 4) by November 21, 2022, plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of any cross-motion for summary judgment and the parties shall jointly file an appendix containing copies of those portions of the administrative record cited or otherwise relied on in their briefs, see LCvR 7(n)(2). To conserve limited judicial resources, given competing demands of significant civil and criminal caseloads, and also provide expeditious review of the merits of the pending claim under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., consolidation of plaintiffs' request for extraordinary preliminary injunctive relief and any dispositive motions is warranted. The expedited schedule requested by plaintiffs sought completion -- all before the end of this month, June 2022 -- of bifurcated briefing and two separate hearings on their joint motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, see #14 JSR at 1, notwithstanding any trial or motions schedules this Court has previously scheduled in criminal and other civil matters, or the difficulties, if not impossibilities, such time constraints would mean for submission of, or ability to review thoroughly, the critical administrative record. In a challenge to an agency adjudication under the APA such as this one, the Court is required to examine the administrative record before granting any relief at either the preliminary injunction or merits stage. See, e.g., Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 243 F.3d 579, 582 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Here, the administrative record is expected to be complex, substantial, and fact intensive, detailing plaintiffs' completion (or not) of purchase orders for the Defense Logistics Agency ("DLA") over several years leading to the agency's issuance over one year ago, on May 25, 2021, of a Notice of Proposed Debarment to plaintiffs, followed, on April 21, 2022, by final debarment determinations. See generally #1 Compl., Ex. 2., Mem. Concerning the Debarments of Precision Metals Corp., Thomas Figlozzi, Tony Figlozzi, and Peter Canning; see also #11 Pls.' Mot. for Preliminary Injunction at 2 (arguing that throughout debarment proceedings defendants committed "serious process violations" and "many violations of governing regulations and case law") (emphasis in original). Defendants anticipate that the administrative record "will be significantly longer than Plaintiffs' 125-page complaint and [its] nearly 650 pages of attachments," which record the government represents "will take time" to assemble "as will drafting a response to Plaintiffs' 63-page Motion" for preliminary injunctive relief filed, upon plaintiffs' request with leave of Court, in excess of the page limit specified in the Local Rules. #14 JSR at 2. Thus, consideration of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief in tandem with any dispositive motions will promote judicial efficiency by allowing the Court to resolve this dispute with review of the administrative record in connection with a single round of briefing. In addition, the adopted schedule promotes fairness by allowing careful evaluation of the administrative record. Since DLA issued its Notice of Proposed Debarment in May 2021, #1 Compl., Ex. 11, Notice of Proposed Debarment, plaintiffs have been "excluded from conducting business with the Government as agents or representatives of other contractors," Compl. 48. Yet, rather than promptly filing their opposition to that notice, plaintiffs instead requested at least five extensions to file an opposition until finally doing so almost a year later on March 11, 2022 -- all the while remaining barred from bidding on new government contracts for that entire period. #1 Compl., Ex. 2 at 1; Compl. 48. Given plaintiffs' delay for about a year prior to formally contesting their proposed debarment before the agency, consolidation of preliminary injunction and merits review will not result in any unfair prejudice to plaintiffs. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 12, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin R. Massoudi on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Massoudi, Kevin) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance by James Matthew Carter on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Carter, James) |
| Filing 14 Joint STATUS REPORT by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher A. Eiswerth on behalf of All Defendants (Eiswerth, Christopher) |
| Filing 12 STATUS REPORT by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Canni, Todd) |
|
Filing 10
STANDING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 8, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
| Filing 9 SUMMONS (2) Issued Electronically as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (zeg) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Kevin R. Massoudi, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-9292830. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- James Matthew Carter, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-9292824. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Proposed Order by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP. re #4 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Canni, Todd) |
|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING plaintiffs' #4 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit, and DIRECTING that plaintiffs' memorandum in support of any forthcoming application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction shall not exceed 63 pages. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 8, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING plaintiffs' #8 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Mr. Massoudi may enter an appearance pro hac vice for the purpose of representing plaintiffs in this action. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). #Click for instructions. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 8, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the parties to confer and file, by 3 PM on June 9, 2022, a joint status report proposing a schedule to complete briefing in response to the plaintiffs' #11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and for submission of the administrative record relevant to the agency action at issue, see LCvR 7(n)(1); Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 243 F.3d 579, 582 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding that filing of administrative record was required before district court could rule on request for preliminary injunction challenging agency adjudication). Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 8, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING plaintiffs' #7 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Mr. Carter may enter an appearance pro hac vice for the purpose of representing plaintiffs in this action. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). #Click for instructions. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 8, 2022. (lcbah2)
|
| Filing 5 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed by THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Attachments: #1 Summons)(Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction by ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Attachments: #1 Application for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction, #2 Memorandum in Support)(Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS (8) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants. (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(zmh) |
| Case Assigned to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell. (zmh) |
| NOTICE OF ERROR re #1 Complaint; emailed to todd.canni@pillsburylaw.com, cc'd 2 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Missing summonses-government. When naming a government agent or agency as a defendant, you must supply a summons for each defendant & two additional summonses for the U.S. Attorney & U.S. Attorney General. Please submit using the event Request for Summons to Issue. (zmh, ) |
| Filing 2 LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by PRECISION METALS CORP. (Canni, Todd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-9282965) filed by THOMAS J. FIGLOZZI, ANTHONY C. FIGLOZZI, PRECISION METALS CORP.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Civil Cover Sheet, #19 Summons Austin, #20 Summons DLA, #21 Summons DOD, #22 Summons Kendall, #23 Summons Lightner, #24 Summons Skubic, #25 Summons USA, #26 Summons USAF)(Canni, Todd) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
