Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret
Court
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
Decided
May 27, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret ) ASBCA No. 63737 ) Under Contract No. N33191-21-F-4389 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq. Gdanski Law PC Teaneck, NJ APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Allison M. McDade, Esq. Navy Chief Trial Attorney Kevin Bolin, Esq. Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL On May 31, 2024, the government filed a request to dismiss this appeal with prejudice. In its request, the government indicated that the parties executed an agreement settling this appeal on January 15, 2024. The agreement required appellant to move the Board to dismiss the appeal with prejudice within five calendar days of receiving payment. The government provided an exhibit showing that the settlement payment was made to appellant on February 28, 2024. Appellant has not filed a motion to dismiss. By Orders dated June 17, 2024 and July 12, 2024, the Board directed appellant to respond to the government’s request to dismiss. Appellant did not file a response to the government’s request to dismiss. On August 5, 2024, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause, directing appellant to respond no later than 21 days from the date of the Order on why the Board should not dismiss this appeal with prejudice, under Board Rule 17, for failure to prosecute. Appellant did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause. On September 6, 2024, a staff attorney from the Board called appellant to inquire on its status in filing a response to the government’s request to dismiss. Appellant stated that it expected to file its response on September 9, 2024. Appellant has not filed this response. On May 21, 2025, the government filed a request to dismiss this appeal with prejudice pursuant to Board Rule 17. In this request, the government reiterated appellant’s repeated failures to respond to, and comply with, the aforementioned Board Orders. The government also contended that appellant has abandoned this appeal following receipt of the settlement payment, even though appellant (represented by the same counsel) is still actively litigating the related appeals of ASBCA No. 63951 et al. Appellant has failed to file either: (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement; (2) a response to the government’s May 31, 2024 request to dismiss following settlement payment; or (3) a response to the Board’s August 5, 2024 Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, we grant the government’s requests to dismiss. See Mansoor Int’l Dev. Servs., ASBCA No. 58423 et al., 2019 WL 3842468 (Aug. 1, 2019) (dismissing the appeals with prejudice after the parties executed a settlement agreement, but appellant failed to file either a motion to dismiss or a response to the government’s motion to dismiss); The Minesen Co., ASBCA Nos. 62096, 62104, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,799 at 188,705 (dismissing the appeals with prejudice under Board Rule 17 upon concluding, “that appellant’s lack of communication reflects an intention not to continue the prosecution of this appeal”). The appeal is dismissed with prejudice under Board Rule 17 for failure to prosecute. Dated: May 27, 2025 JOHN J. THRASHER Administrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals I concur I concur OWEN C. WILSON MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Vice Chairman Armed Services Board Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals of Contract Appeals 2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63737, Appeal of Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. Dated: May 27, 2025 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
May 27, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
The case Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret was heard by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) under ASBCA No. 63737. The appeal arose from Contract No. N33191-21-F-4389 and was officially dismissed on May 27, 2025. The dismissal was based on the appellant's failure to respond to multiple orders from the Board following a settlement agreement.
Key Legal Issues
- Failure to Prosecute: The primary issue was whether the appellant had abandoned the appeal after receiving a settlement payment.
- Compliance with Settlement Agreement: The appellant's obligation to file a motion to dismiss as per the settlement agreement was also scrutinized.
Court's Decision
The ASBCA granted the government's request to dismiss the appeal with prejudice under Board Rule 17. The dismissal was predicated on the appellant's repeated failures to comply with Board orders and their apparent abandonment of the appeal following the settlement payment.
Legal Reasoning
The Board's decision was influenced by the following factors:
- The government's request for dismissal was based on the appellant's lack of response to previous orders.
- The settlement agreement required the appellant to move for dismissal within five days of receiving payment, which was not adhered to.
- The Board noted that the appellant was still actively litigating related appeals, indicating selective engagement in litigation.
Key Holdings
- The appeal was dismissed with prejudice due to the appellant's failure to prosecute.
- The Board emphasized that the lack of communication from the appellant reflected an intention not to continue with the appeal.
Precedents and Citations
- Mansoor Int’l Dev. Servs., ASBCA No. 58423 et al.: This case served as a precedent where appeals were dismissed with prejudice after a settlement agreement was executed but the appellant failed to respond appropriately.
- The Minesen Co., ASBCA Nos. 62096, 62104: Another relevant case where the Board dismissed appeals under similar circumstances of non-compliance.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the importance of compliance with settlement agreements and Board orders in contract appeals. Legal practitioners should note:
- Timely Responses: Parties must respond promptly to Board orders to avoid dismissal.
- Settlement Agreements: Clear understanding and adherence to the terms of settlement agreements are crucial in maintaining the right to appeal.
- Litigation Strategy: Active engagement in litigation is necessary, as selective participation may lead to unfavorable outcomes.
In conclusion, the dismissal of Zafer Taahhut Insaat Ve Ticaret's appeal serves as a cautionary tale for contractors and legal professionals involved in federal contract disputes, highlighting the necessity of diligence in legal proceedings.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
May 27, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools