The opinion of the court was delivered by: WATSON
This action was commenced by plaintiff under the provisions of the Lucas Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 note. (Act of August 7, 1946, c. 864, Sec. 1-6, 60 Stat. 902, as amended June 25, 1948, c. 646, Sec. 37, 62 Stat. 992.) The loss of $ 99,521.09 which plaintiff, in its amended complaint, alleges was incurred in the performance of certain Navy contracts, was reduced at the trial to $ 80,550.49.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's case defendant moved, under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., to dismiss the complaint (amended complaint) and the plaintiff's case, with prejudice, and to direct a verdict in defendant's favor. That motion is now before the Court for consideration.
1. This action is brought by plaintiff under the provisions of the Lucas Act, as amended, 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 note. The action was commenced on June 7, 1948, following the denial by the Navy Department War Contracts Relief Board, on December 10, 1947, of plaintiff's administrative Lucas Act claim of February 5, 1947. Various defendants named in the complaint have been dropped leaving as the sole defendant the United States of America.
2. Plaintiff bases its action upon alleged losses suffered in the performance of two Navy contracts, NObs 16054 and NObs 17461, executed respectively August 23, and October 22, 1944.
3. Plaintiff filed with the Navy Department a written request for relief of losses by posting a letter addressed to the Navy Department, Bureau of Ships, Attention of Contracting Officer.
4. Plaintiff corporation, for the year 1944, showed an overall net loss of $ 3,419.99.
5. Plaintiff corporation, for the year 1945, showed an overall net loss of $ 3,957.95.
6. The evidence adduced at the trial established that plaintiff failed to maintain an adequate cost accounting system.
7. Plaintiff was unable to furnish evidence from which a profit or loss could be determined in the performance of any contract or subcontract for the United States Government.
8. Plaintiff failed to produce a witness who was capable of accurately calculating profits or losses on any contract after examining the books and records of plaintiff corporation.
9. Plaintiff's lawsuit is based upon losses allegedly incurred in the performance of the two Navy contracts but it failed to establish said losses by competent evidence.
10. Plaintiff was paid the sum of $ 28,576 on Navy Contract NObs 16054 and $ 92,205 on Navy Contract NObs 17461. Both contracts were terminated by the government upon the cessation of hostilities. The above sums of money represent the full contract price.
11. Plaintiff failed to maintain inventory records from which materials used in the performance of individual contracts ...