Monticello Live

Tuesday, in a US District Courtroom in Little Rock, Judge D. P. Marshall threw out the Siemens case against the City of Monticello.

The primary reason for the judges ruling was based on the fact that the contract was not properly bid out, according to Arkansas state law.

A large portion of the hour-long hearing  also deal with the lack of “multi year surety bonds,” which should have been included with the contract.    The surety bonds are important to the case, because it was a performance-based contract, which guarantees cost savings to the city, by use of improved performance of the water system because of reduced leaks and better controlled by improved meters

One thing that stood out, as an audience member, is that “90% of the cost savings were to be based on  stipulated (pre-agreed) estimates,  not measured (actual)  savings.”

SIEMENS  replied that they had sent copies of the contract to the city and city attorney Whit Barton for their input.

Monticello attorney, Cliff Gibson, assisted by Lee Curry, responded that almost all of the documents were prepared by Siemens and their representatives.

——————–

When a “summary judgment” is granted, tthat means is that case has been dismissed by the court.  In this case, Siemens lawsuit against the city of Monticello is declared illegal.

However, the city’s counterclaim against Siemens is still ongoing, in an effort to recover the $7 million paid to SIEMENS, as well as to solve the issue of the $2.5 million in “incorrect” water meters that have been installed.

In a closing call me at, Gibson ask judge Marshall to set a deadline for Siemens industries attorney to provide him with document discovery for his rrequest  for a list of any/all court cases, where Siemens has been sued for similar instances of this nature.   Siemens attorney, Mr. Franco, replied that that will take a tremendous amount of research.   Judge Marshall then ordered  they provide Gibson with everything they currently have by the end of this month; and everything that has been requested, of this nature, by April 29.

 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 8:11 am and is filed under Site. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.