Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation v. Tessada Associates, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2233
SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TESSADA ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01278-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: October 16, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth A. Martin, THE MARTIN LAW FIRM, PLLC, McLean, Virginia,
for Appellant. Jonathan D. Frieden, Leigh M. Winstead, ODIN,
FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation (“SCSC”)
appeals the district court’s grant of Tessada Associates, Inc.’s
motion for summary judgment.* We affirm.
In April 2009, the federal government awarded Tessada a
contract to provide logistical services to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Ames Research Center. In
June 2009, Tessada entered into a subcontract with SCSC to
facilitate work on the government contract. The subcontract
consisted of a base period of performance from May 1, 2009,
through September 30, 2009, and twenty-two exercisable option
periods. Each option extended the period of performance by one
month. The parties modified the contract sixteen times,
exercising nineteen of the option periods. The final
modification extended the period of performance through November
30, 2011. On November 14, 2011, Tessada notified SCSC that it
would not extend the subcontract beyond November 30, 2011.
On November 22, 2011, SCSC filed a complaint for breach of
contract against Tessada in federal court, alleging that
* SCSC also appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of
Tessada’s motion to strike SCSC’s designation of Ronald Walker
as a rebuttal expert witness. Because SCSC failed to object to
this ruling within fourteen days as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(a), SCSC has waived review of this issue. See
Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 274 (4th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Tessada’s termination breached the subcontract because the
parties intended and agreed that Tessada would retain SCSC as
the subcontractor for as long as the government retained Tessada
as the prime contractor. The parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment
for Tessada, finding that the modified subcontract unambiguously
stated that the period of performance was to end on November 30,
2011. Scientific & Commercial Sys. Corp. v. Tessada Assocs.,
Inc., No. 1:11-cv-1278, 2012 WL 3866497, at *2 (E.D. Va. Aug.
30, 2012). Because the parties did not execute an additional
modification to extend the term, the district court held that
the subcontract expired on November 30, 2011, and that Tessada
had no legal obligation to continue a contractual relationship
with SCSC. Id.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo. Hardwick ex rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 433
(4th Cir. 2013). In conducting our review, we view all evidence
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. We do
not weigh the evidence, but rather we only determine whether
there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district
court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially
on the reasoning of the district court’s order. See Scientific &
Commercial Sys. Corp., 2012 WL 3866497. We dispense with oral

-- 3 of 4 --

4
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --