United States of America, Ex Rel., Thomas G. Leno, Dorothy Leno Dba T & D Construction v. Summit Construction Company

Good Law
36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,774·892 F.2d 788·1989 WL 153082·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 19010
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 19, 198988-4122California2,198 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Appellants Thomas and Dorothy Leno dba T & D Construction (“Leno”) challenge a denial of attorneys’ fees and the amount of damages awarded by the trial court. Leno argues that its claims against appel-lees Wausau and Summit Construction were pendent state claims and that as the prevailing party under Idaho law it is entitled to attorneys’ fees. The district court refused to award fees on the ground that the action arose under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 270a-270b (1982), which does not allow fee awards. Because we agree with the district court that Leno's claims were brought pursuant to the Miller Act, we affirm the lower court’s denial of fees. In addition, appellant argues that the district court arbitrarily calculated damages and failed to consider the equities. We find that the district court did not err in calculating the damages, and we affirm the court’s judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellee, Summit Construction Company (Summit) was awarded a contract by the United States Forest Service to build nine timber access roads in the Targhee National Forest. As required by the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270a(a), Summit filed a payment bond issued by appellee,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.