Plaintiff Healy Long & Jevin, Inc. (“Healy”), a construction subcontractor, filed a Complaint for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (“CASPA”) against Defendants CQSA Construction, LLC (“CQSA”). CQSA moved to dismiss based on its allegation that the contract between the parties required the Sub to go through mediation before filing suit. However, Healy argues that dismissal is not required because Healy did comply with the Contract and underwent mediation, which reached an impasse before this case was filed. After communications between the parties and mediator, the mediator formally advised all parties that mediation was no longer viable because the parties had reached an impasse. After the mediator’s declaration, Healy initiated litigation. The court denied the motion. Healy Long & Javin, Inc., v. CQSA Construction, Civ Action 25-3156 (U.S. Dist. Ct. Eastern Dist. PA (Nov 18, 2025).
The Contract attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint stated:
“The parties shall endeavor to resolve their Claims by mediation . . . . A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Contract, and filed with the person of entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of binding dispute resolution proceedings but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days from the date of filing . . . .”
The court stated that:
“The plain language of the Contract indicates the clear intention of the parties that a request for mediation be made, but that the request may be made concurrently with the filing of a lawsuit, and that if that happens, mediation shall proceed in advance of the lawsuit’s proceeds, which shall be stayed for 60 days. Id. .3 This language contrasts with other cases where courts have dismissed cases after finding that mediation was a condition precedent to litigation based on contractual language.”
“… The Contract’s language states that a ‘request may be made concurrently with the filing of court proceedings’ and does not indicate that litigation can proceed only if mediation is unsuccessful.”
***
“Moreover, the plain language of the Contract mandates that the parties endeavor to resolve their Claimsby mediation,” but does not mandate that litigation can only be pursued once mediation is deemedunsuccessful. As such, mediation is not a condition precedent to this lawsuit and dismissal is not anappropriate remedy.”
Comment: If parties intend to require certain steps be taken before litigation is filed, the contract should specifically state those requirements.
About the author: Article written by J. Kent Holland, Jr., a construction lawyer located in Tysons Corner, Virginia, with a national practice (formerly with Wickwire Gavin, P.C. and now with ConstructionRisk Counsel, PLLC) representing design professionals, contractors and project owners. He is founder and president of a consulting firm, ConstructionRisk, LLC, providing consulting services to owners, design professionals, contractors and attorneys on construction projects. He is publisher of ConstructionRisk Report and may be reached at Kent@ConstructionRisk.com or by calling 703-623-1932. This article is published in ConstructionRisk Report, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 2026).
Copyright 2026, ConstructionRisk, LLC
Connect