Nastasi & Associates, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P.

Background

Nastasi & Associates, Inc. (N&A), an interior drywall subcontractor, alleged that Bloomberg, L.P., Turner Construction Corp., Eurotech Construction Corp., Donaldson Acoustics, Co. Inc., and individual defendants participated in a bid-rigging and bribery scheme. N&A asserted claims under federal and state antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law theories of negligent supervision and negligent retention.

N&A claimed that Turner manipulated bids for Bloomberg’s 120 Park Project so that other bidders received contracts, and that N&A lost several jobs despite submitting lower bids. The opinion recounts evidence that Anthony Nastasi questioned the bidding process in 2011, reported alleged wrongdoing to the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and learned in 2015 of an alleged requirement to pay a bribe to keep Bloomberg and Turner work. N&A stopped bidding on Bloomberg projects in 2015.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that all of N&A’s claims were barred by statutes of limitations. They also sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 based on N&A’s failure to preserve emails, text messages, records, files, and equipment, and its failure to disclose a 2021 letter that the defendants said showed N&A’s earlier knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing.

Summary Judgment

The court held that N&A’s federal antitrust claims accrued in 2011, when the alleged bid manipulation injured N&A. Because N&A filed this lawsuit in July 2020, the court found those claims presumptively barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations.

The court also found that N&A’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims accrued no later than 2015. The court concluded that N&A had inquiry notice of its alleged injury and its connection to the defendants’ conduct by 2011, based on Nastasi’s contemporaneous statements about manipulated bids. The court further found that N&A had actual notice by 2015, when Nastasi allegedly received information about bribery connected to Bloomberg and Turner.

The court rejected N&A’s fraudulent-concealment argument because the undisputed facts showed that N&A did not remain unaware of its potential claims. The court also rejected N&A’s argument that the limitations period should be extended while its earlier lawsuit was pending. It reasoned that N&A had already failed to cure a real-party-in-interest problem in that earlier case within a reasonable time, and that extending the deadline would give N&A another opportunity to pursue claims that were already time barred.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed N&A’s federal claims. After dismissing all claims within the court’s original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over N&A’s New York-law claims. Those state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Spoliation and Discovery Sanctions

The court found that N&A had a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence by April 2015, when its general counsel sent an email warning Bloomberg and Eurotech about anticipated litigation. The court concluded that N&A was at least negligent when it failed to preserve employee emails and other materials while litigation and threats of litigation surrounded the company.

The court did not decide whether the missing evidence justified an adverse inference because summary judgment independently resolved the federal claims. It denied that aspect of the sanctions request as moot, but granted the motion to the extent the defendants sought reasonable attorney’s fees and costs connected to litigating the spoliation motion.

The court also found that N&A violated its discovery obligations by failing to disclose the 2021 Admission. Because the defendants located and obtained the document themselves and summary judgment had already been granted, the court limited the resulting award to the defendants’ costs incurred locating and obtaining it.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the federal claims and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court granted the motion for spoliation and discovery sanctions in part and denied it in part as moot. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the fees and costs, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.