DOCKET NO. HHD-CV16-6069748-S : SUPERIOR COURT CENTERPLAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC, : DONO HARTFORD LLC J.D. OF HARTFORD V. : AT HARTFORD CITY OF HARTFORD : JULY 22, 2016
EX PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING
Centerplan Construction Company LLC (herein also “Centerplan”) and DoNo Hartford LLC (herein also “DoNo”), Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, hereby request an immediate emergency hearing to preserve the rights they seek to enforce by this action. The Defendant, the City of Hartford (herein also the “City”) has not appeared in the case and therefore this Motion is made ex parte. Detailed factual allegations are contained in the Verified Complaint and Application for Temporary Injunction filed in this action. In brief, for the purposes of the instant Motion for Emergency Hearing, the Plaintiffs had contractual relationships with the City regarding the design and construction of a baseball stadium in the City of Hartford. On June 6, 2016, the City wrongfully terminated the respective contracts, while the City was in default, without following contractual procedures, which expressly allowed Centerplan a seven-day right to cure any alleged defect, and which mandated mediation before a retired State Superior Court Judge and an experienced pre-selected mediator in the event of a claim or dispute arising between the parties.
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED
 
The contract between DoNo and the City specifically provides: “Notwithstanding any  provision of this Agreement to the contrary, either party may seek injunctive relief or another form of ancillary relief at any time from any court within the Hartford Judicial District in the event that a Dispute or Controversy requires emergency relief before the matter may be resolved under the dispute resolution procedures outlined herein.” Development Services Agreement, at  ¶ 15(j) (Attached as Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint). DoNo has sought the emergency injunctive relief to which it is entitled. The contract between Centerplan and DoNo (whose rights and obligations the City has assumed in order to terminate Centerplan) specifically provides that disputes must be submitted to an agreed-upon Neutral, the Honorable Jonathan E. Silbert (Ret.), who is obligated to provide a written decision within 30 days prior to mediation of the dispute. Design Build Contract, at ¶¶ A.4.2, A.4.3.1 (Attached as Exhibit B to the Verified Complaint). The City has not presented a claim to Judge Silbert, nor has it engaged in mediation of any dispute. The Plaintiffs therefore filed this action, seeking injunctive relief from the Court. In relevant part, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the City from seeking alternatives to continue with the work contemplated under the contracts until the dispute resolution proceedings mandated by those contracts are followed and seek an order compelling the City to participate in the contractually-mandated dispute resolution procedures to which it is bound. Subsequent to filing of the Verified Complaint and Application for Temporary Injunction, the parties, through counsel, discussed their availability for a status conference with the Court. A status conference has been scheduled for August 12, 2016. 2
 
 
Upon information and belief, a meeting took place on or about Tuesday, July 19, 2016  between Josh Solomon, the owner of the baseball team scheduled to occupy the stadium, and representatives from a construction company – John Moriarty & Associates, Inc. (herein also “Moriarty”). At the conclusion of that meeting, representatives from the City advised both Mr. Solomon and Moriarty that they could contact subcontractors who had previously worked on the  project to discuss going back to work with Moriarty overseeing the project, as opposed to Centerplan. On or about Wednesday, July 20, 2016, a project manager from Moriarty did contact at least one subcontractor to discuss going back to work under the oversight of Moriarty. Upon information and belief, the City intends to announce next week (the week of July 25) that it has retained Moriarty to complete the project. The Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by the City’s action because the City will do precisely that which the injunction seeks to prevent, without complying with the obligations to which it is  bound under the respective contracts. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs require the intervention of this Court to compel the City to participate in the dispute resolution proceedings required under the contracts and to preclude the City from engaging a replacement party to complete the project  before the merits of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Injunctive Relief can be heard. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court schedule an immediate hearing to address the matter, before the rights they seek to enforce through their Application for Temporary Injunction and Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief are lost. 3
 
View on Scribd