Frontier Traylor Shea, LLC v. Metropolitan Airports Commission

132 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (2000)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Frontier Traylor Shea, LLC v. Metropolitan Airports Commission

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
132 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (2000)

Facts

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) (defendant) was the administrator of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. The MAC was responsible for finding a contractor for a transportation construction project because the project required construction under the airport runway and through the airport terminal. The MAC required the contractors planning to submit bids for the project to undergo a prequalification process before submitting the bids. Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. (Frontier), Traylor Bros., Inc. (Traylor), and J.F. Shea Construction (Shea) were the members of a limited-liability company organized in Delaware and named Frontier Traylor Shea, LLC (Frontier LLC) (plaintiff). Pursuant to the MAC’s prequalification process, Frontier, Traylor, and Shea submitted a document listing the entity’s name as the “Frontier / Traylor / Shea joint venture” (Frontier JV). The document indicated that Frontier JV was a “joint-and-several joint partnership” and stated “[n]ot applicable” in response to a question regarding whether the entity was a corporation. Thereafter, Frontier LLC submitted the lowest bid for the project. Nevertheless, the MAC rejected Frontier LLC’s bid because Frontier LLC was a limited-liability company rather than a joint-venture partnership, as indicated on the prequalification paperwork. Consequently, the MAC awarded the project to the next lowest bidder, which was a joint venture. Frontier LLC sued the MAC and moved for a permanent injunction regarding the MAC’s decision not to award the project to Frontier LLC. The MAC argued that Frontier LLC differed materially from Frontier JV because the prequalification paperwork had not shown any agreement making the members of Frontier LLC jointly liable for the entity’s obligations and liabilities. Conversely, Frontier LLC argued that a limited-liability company constituted a joint venture.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Montgomery, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership