The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Iqbal Singh ("Singh") and IMS, P.C. ("IMS") commenced the instant action against Defendants asserting claims under the Fifth Amendment and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. sec. 2000d), and the New York Human Rights Law. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 on the ground that the instant action is time barred.
The Complaint alleges the following facts which, for purposes of the instant motion, are assumed to be true.
Plaintiff Iqbal Singh ("Singh") is the president of Plaintiff IMS, P.C. ("IMS"). IMS had three contracts with the United States Government. In sum, the Complaint alleges that Defendants "expressly procure[d] the termination of" Plaintiffs' government contracts and "prevented the award of more work. . . based upon the racial and ethnic origin of Mr. Singh and the employees of IMS, or the perceived alienage of Mr. Singh and the employees of IMS." The specifics are as follows.
In April 1990, IMS was selected by the Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps"), Huntsville Division, to provide certain work under Contract No. DACA87-92-C-0004 ("Contract 0004"). This was a fixed price contract. In September 1992, IMS was selected to perform work on Contract No. DACA31-92-0046 ("Contract 0046"). This was an "Indefinite Quantity/Indefinite Delivery" contract (hereinafter "ID/IQ"). It had a one year term with options for four additional years. The contract had a guaranteed minimum of $100,000 and a maximum of $3,000,000. From 1992 until 1994, the Corps regularly issued task orders to IMS under Contract 0046. The total amount of work given to IMS under Contract 0046 was $646,414.00. During this period, IMS's work was rated to be "excellent." At some point in time, the contracts were transferred from the Corps's Huntsville Division to the Baltimore Division.
In early to mid 1994, several meetings were held between personnel employed by the Watervliet Arsenal and Corps employees concerning Contract 0004. After these meetings, it was determined that Contract 0004 would be removed from IMS and given to a firm known as Malcolm Pirnie. In August 1994, Defendant Russell Wells, Director of Public Works at the Watervliet Arsenal, wrote a letter to the Corps requesting the termination of Contract 0004. According to a hand-written memo dated August 31, 1994, Defendant James Sherman claimed that IMS "employs non-U.S. citizens that must be escorted at WVA & they do not have the manpower to do this extra effort. . ." IMS was not permitted to proceed with the work under Contract 0004. IMS also did not receive any further task orders under Contract 0046. In October 1994, Defendant Colonel Robert Brown and Sherri Andersen Hudgins prepared derogatory performance evaluation reports on two delivery orders prepared by IMS. According to Plaintiffs, these performance evaluations are false.
In February 1995, IMS inquired about doing certain additional work for the Corps. It was requested that certain environmental remediation work be given to IMS. In February 1995, Defendant Brown refused to give the work to IMS.
In June 1995, IMS was awarded Contract DAC31-95-0057 ("Contract 0057"). This was an ID/IQ contract that had a guaranteed minimum and a maximum. Contract 0057 had a one year term with an option for an additional year. Although IMS did receive work orders under this contract, the amount of work received was less than 10% of maximum allowable. From 1994 to 1997, other contractors received work from the Baltimore District, but IMS "was unable to get any substantial new task orders or contracts."
In or around 1997, Defendant Christina Correale, the Corp's Hazardous Waste Chief, told an IMS employee that IMS should send a white person to solicit work from the Corps, due to racial prejudice.
In May 2007, Plaintiffs commenced a breach of contract action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims. In that complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that "racial prejudice is believed to have played a role in the inability of IMS to get work" and that the Corps engaged in "discriminatory practices." In March 2010, after a trial, Plaintiffs' Court of Federal Claims action was dismissed.
Plaintiffs commenced the instant action in April 2009 claiming that their contracts were terminated and they were denied work on account of racial and ethnic discrimination.
Plaintiffs assert claims under the Fifth Amendment and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. sec. 2000d), and the New York Human Rights Law.
Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs' ...