Northrop Grumman Missile Systems
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 - ) ) Northrop Grumman Mission Systems ) ASBCA No. 62596-ADR ) Under Contract No. W91QUZ-07-D-0005 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Thomas A. Lemmer, Esq. Joseph G. Martinez, Esq. Dentons US LLP Denver, CO Peter B. Hutt, II, Esq. Daniel L. Russell, Jr., Esq. Evan R. Sherwood, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP Washington DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq. DCMA Chief Trial Attorney Adrianne L. Goins, Esq. Matthew D. Bordelon, Esq. Trial Attorneys Defense Contract Management Agency ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: May 27, 2025 LAURA J. ARNETT Administrative Judge Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 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. 62596-ADR, Appeal of Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. Dated: May 27, 2025 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 2
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 Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently addressed the appeal of Northrop Grumman Mission Systems under Contract No. W91QUZ-07-D-0005. The appeal was formally dismissed with prejudice on May 27, 2025, indicating a settlement between the parties involved.
Key Legal Issues
- Contract Disputes: The case revolved around disputes arising from a federal contract, which is a common issue in government contracting.
- Settlement Agreement: The dismissal with prejudice suggests that the parties reached a settlement, preventing any future claims on the same matter.
Court's Decision
The ASBCA, presided over by Administrative Judge Laura J. Arnett, issued an Order of Dismissal stating that the dispute had been settled satisfactorily. The dismissal was made with prejudice, meaning that Northrop Grumman cannot bring the same claim again.
Legal Reasoning
The court's decision to dismiss the appeal with prejudice reflects the resolution of the dispute outside of the formal adjudication process. This is a common outcome in contract disputes where parties negotiate a settlement to avoid prolonged litigation.
Key Holdings
- The appeal was dismissed with prejudice, indicating a final resolution.
- The case highlights the importance of settlement agreements in federal contract disputes, allowing parties to resolve issues without further litigation.
- The involvement of prominent legal representatives from Dentons US LLP and Covington & Burling LLP underscores the complexity and significance of the case.
Precedents and Citations
While this case does not cite specific precedents, it aligns with established principles in contract law regarding settlements and dismissals. The ASBCA often references prior decisions in similar cases to guide its rulings.
Practical Implications
- For Contractors: This case serves as a reminder of the potential for resolution through negotiation, emphasizing the importance of having skilled legal representation in contract disputes.
- For Legal Practitioners: The dismissal with prejudice can be a strategic outcome, allowing parties to avoid the uncertainties of a trial. Legal professionals should consider settlement as a viable option in contract disputes.
In conclusion, the Northrop Grumman Mission Systems appeal highlights the significance of settlements in federal contracting disputes, reinforcing the notion that parties can achieve resolution outside of the courtroom. This case serves as a critical reference for contractors and legal practitioners navigating similar challenges in government contracts.
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