Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Neel-Schaffer, Inc. et alMEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Stay ProceedingsS.D. Miss.February 14, 20191 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC PLAINTIFF VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG NEEL-SCHAFFER, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY Plaintiff Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC (“SIC”) appears herein to file its Memorandum in Support of Response in Opposition to the Motion to Stay filed by Defendants, Yates Anderson, JV, Roy Anderson Corp., and W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (collectively referred to as “YAJV”).1 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This litigation arises out of a construction project known as “West Pier Facilities”, Project No. 305, located in Harrison County, Mississippi (the “Project”). Plaintiff, SIC, was the general contractor hired by the owner, the Mississippi State Port Authority (“MSPA”). The eight Defendants in this litigation, including YAJV, are private consultants and/or engineering firms which were involved extensively in the Project. While constructing the Project, SIC encountered two enormous underground debris fields in the exact location where SIC was to drive the pilings for the building foundation, which debris was not shown on the Project plans, specifications, or other bidding documents. As a result, the Project was impossible to construct as designed. Every Defendant in this litigation had actual knowledge of the existence and/or 1 R. Doc. 287. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 16 2 whereabouts of the debris. Yet, despite this knowledge, the Defendants failed to communicate this critical information to SIC and failed to ensure that such information was properly included in the Project documents. SIC was directed to excavate and remove the undisclosed debris, which caused significant delays to the Project and required SIC to incur substantial expense. In September 2016, the MSPA terminated SIC’s contract. As a result, SIC initiated legal proceedings in November 2016 against the MSPA in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, First Judicial District, by filing a Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-105 of the Mississippi Arbitration Act. On September 26, 2017, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of SIC and compelled arbitration between SIC and the MSPA. Thereafter, the MSPA filed an appeal in connection with the ruling by the Circuit Court. On July 10, 2017, SIC initiated this litigation against the Defendants.2 In general, SIC’s Complaint asserts that each of the Defendants knew or should have known of the existence of the underground debris fields, and that the conduct of each of the Defendants in connection with the Project fell below the applicable standard of care, including their failure to disclose, warn and/or provide information necessary to construct the Project. On March 30, 2018, one of the Defendants, Thompson, moved to stay this litigation completely.3 Specifically, Thompson requested that this action be stayed pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act pending an appellate decision in the 2 R. Doc. 1. 3 R. Doc. 211. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 16 3 matter of Mississippi State Port Authority vs. Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC, 2017-CA-1393, determining whether arbitration was required between the MSPA and SIC. Thompson further requested that this litigation be stayed until the conclusion of any arbitration proceeding between SIC and the MSPA. This Court granted the stay, and an Order was entered staying this lawsuit pending a decision of the Mississippi Court of Appeals.4 On December 18, 2018, the Mississippi Court of Appeals rendered its decision. Therein, the Court concluded that SIC’s claims against the MSPA are not subject to an arbitration clause. Further review of the appellate decision was not sought, and the decision is now final. Thus, insofar as there will be no arbitration between SIC and the MSPA, the premise for the previously requested stay is moot. Therefore, on January 18, 2019, SIC filed a Motion to Lift Stay in these proceedings.5 On January 31, 2019, an Order was entered lifting the stay. On February 1, 2019, YAJV filed the instant motion seeking to stay this litigation (again) until the conclusion of a separate arbitration arising out of the Project between SIC and one of its subcontractors, ADS, LLC (“ADS”).6 For the reasons set forth below, the relief requested by YAJV is unsupported in fact and law and should be denied in its entirety.7 4 R. Doc. 284. 5 R. Doc. 285. 6 Several of the co-Defendants have filed joinders to YAJV’s Motion to Stay. R. Doc. 289, 290, 291, 296, and 299. 7 Defendant, Thompson Engineering, Inc. (“Thompson”), has filed a separate Motion to Reinstate Stay. R. Doc. 292. Thompson’s motion asserts that this litigation should be stayed for reasons beyond the pending SIC and ADS arbitration. Therefore, SIC is filing a separate response and memorandum in opposition of Thompson’s motion. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 16 4 THE SIC/ADS ARBITRATION ADS served as SIC’s concrete subcontractor on the Project. Following SIC’s termination, ADS made claims for payment on the bond furnished on the Project by SIC’s surety, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”). ADS, however, was not entitled to payment for those claims because of numerous backcharges which exceeded any amounts ADS would otherwise be due. Therefore, in May 2017, SIC initiated an arbitration proceeding against ADS and ADS filed a counterclaim against SIC seeking payment of amounts it alleges to be due for work performed on the Project. During the course of the proceedings, the claims at issue have been revised. On September 21, 2018, SIC amended its claims against ADS to an amount of $456,486.45, and itemized its claims as follows:8 $5,898,428.88 ADS’s Revised Subcontract Amount x 00.8156 The Owner paid for 81.56% of ADS’s Subcontract prior to SIC’s termination $4,810,758.59 Amount paid by Owner for ADS’s work ($481,075.86) Less 10% Retainage which SIC is entitled to withhold under its Subcontract with ADS $4,329,682.73 Amount due to ADS under its Subcontract (prior to adjustments below) ($3,992,567.31) Less payments previously made to ADS ($512,451.87) Less amounts paid by Travelers to ADS’s vendors ($90,400.00) Less backcharge for SIC installing embeds for ADS ($260,750.00) Less backcharge for SIC installing bollards for ADS ($456,486.45) 8 SIC’s Amended Specification of Claims filed in September 2018 is attached to YAJV’s motion as R. Doc. 287-15. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 16 5 Accordingly, SIC’s claims against ADS in the arbitration are straightforward. The claims involve a determination of the amount ADS is due under the Subcontract based upon the amount paid to SIC by the MSPA for ADS’s work, as SIC’s Subcontract with ADS contained a “pay-if-paid” provision. The claims will then involve a determination in the arbitration of whether SIC is entitled to backcharges against ADS for three (3) specific issues: (1.) Amounts paid by Travelers to ADS’s vendors (for which Travelers is seeking indemnity from SIC), (2.) Amounts incurred by SIC for installing embeds for ADS (which was part of ADS’s scope of work), and (3.) Amounts incurred by SIC for installing bollards for ADS (which was part of ADS’s scope of work). If it is determined that SIC is entitled to each of those backcharges in full, then SIC should be entitled to recover $456,486.45 from ADS. As reflected above, the claims in the SIC/ADS arbitration are wholly unconnected to the claims in these proceedings. SIC’s claims in the arbitration simply involve an accounting under the terms of the Subcontract and a determination of whether SIC can assess backcharges for three (3) issues unrelated to the debris or delay. Whether the Defendants in this lawsuit knew of the underground debris fields and failed to disclose, warn and/or provide information regarding the debris to SIC will not be at issue in the arbitration. Similarly, as reflected in SIC’s amended specification of claims filed in the arbitration, SIC’s claims against ADS do not involve any delay claims. In its motion, YAJV asserts that SIC is seeking the same delay claims against the Defendants in this action as SIC is asserting against ADS. As shown above, YAJV is incorrect as SIC is not seeking any delay claims in the arbitration. YAJV’s assertion is based upon SIC’s claims against ADS, prior to being amended, which claims included Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 16 6 an additional backcharge against ADS for liquidated damages assessed against SIC by the MSPA.9 Notwithstanding that the backcharge for liquidated damages is no longer at issue in the arbitration with ADS, YAJV completely misconstrues what that claim represented. It was never SIC’s position that ADS, nor any of its subcontractors, caused the delay to the completion date of the Project. In fact, SIC has produced an expert report in this lawsuit containing a detailed delay analysis. That report concluded that the delays encountered by SIC “DO NOT” fall within certain types of delays, including delay caused by “subcontractor inefficiencies.”10 The basis for which SIC previously asserted a backcharge for liquidated damages against ADS is similar to the basis for which SIC asserted a backcharge for liquidated damages in the arbitration proceedings with another subcontractor, P&H Construction Corporation (“P&H”).11 SIC does not contend that any failure by those subcontractors to timely perform work delayed the completion of the Project, but rather asserted the backcharges based upon SIC’s Subcontracts which allow SIC to offset payments whenever SIC is “exposed to liability” for a claim asserted against SIC by 9 Exhibit “A” (SIC’s Detailed Statement of Claims filed in the ADS arbitration in June 2018). 10 The expert report of Michael J. Carbo is attached to YAJV’s motion as R. Doc. 287-3. See last bullet point on page 14-15 identifying certain categories of delays which can occur on a project including “contractor/subcontractor inefficiencies.” See second bullet point on page 15 concluding that the delays experienced by SIC “DO NOT” fall within the above-listed categories. 11 SIC and P&H have reached a settlement in connection with all claims between SIC and P&H related to the Project. The SIC/P&H arbitration has been dismissed with prejudice. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 16 7 others, that is capable of being attributed to that subcontractor.12 This position was explained a memorandum filed by SIC in the P&H arbitration, as follows: To be clear, SIC believes that the MSPA’s assessment of liquidated damages against SIC is improper and that delay on the Project was caused by the MSPA and/or its consultants. However, it can not be ignored that the MSPA has assessed liquidated damages against SIC and that SIC continues to be “exposed to liability” for those damages… P&H is confusing what SIC believes to be the cause of the delay with what SIC believes is a reason for which SIC is “exposed to liability.” These are two separate inquiries. The reason SIC is “exposed to liability” must be viewed from the MSPA’s perspective which is that liquidated damages are owed for every day the Project was late, regardless of any effect that the debris had in causing the delay… Therefore, in determining why SIC is “exposed to liability” to the MSPA, SIC must omit any effect the debris had in causing the delay and make a determination as to why SIC believes that the MSPA has assessed liquidated damages…. It is for this reason that SIC believes that its “exposure to liability” can be attributed to P&H, which is not inconsistent with the belief that the MSPA’s assessment of liquidated damages against SIC is improper and that delay on the Project was caused by the MSPA and/or its consultants.13 Thus, SIC has never asserted inconsistent delay claims as YAJV suggests. It has always been the position of SIC that all delay to the completion date of the Project originates from the failure to disclose, warn and/or provide information to SIC regarding the debris and how to overcome its presence so that the pilings could be installed per the original plans and specifications. Whether or not SIC can backcharge subcontractors under the terms of their Subcontracts based upon SIC’s current 12 SIC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment addressing this issue is attached to YAJV’s motion as R. Doc. 287-9. 13 Exhibit “B” (SIC’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed in the P&H arbitration). Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 16 8 “exposure to liability” for liquidated damages is an entirely separate issue.14 Nonetheless, the issue is moot as it pertains to ADS as SIC’s amended specification of claims in that proceeding removed any backcharges for liquidated damages.15 As such, SIC is asserting no claims against ADS even related to delay of the Project. Importantly, the arbitration hearing between SIC and ADS is scheduled for April 15-19, 2019.16 Therefore, the arbitration proceedings will be concluded considerably prior to any trial in this lawsuit. In fact, the arbitration will likely be concluded prior to any potential motions being filed and decided in this action (other than the present request for stay). As such, there is no risk that this lawsuit ensuing will have any impact on the arbitration. II. LAW AND ANALYSIS In the prior ruling which stayed this litigation pending a determination of whether the dispute between SIC and the MSPA was subject to an arbitration clause, this Court explained the applicable law as follows: The defendants seek a stay pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which provides: If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such 14 YAJV’s motion notes that SIC’s original filing in the arbitration stated that “ADS damaged pre-stressed piles and installed oversized pile caps, resulting in extensive additional costs all of which serve as back charges to ADS’ claimed contract balance.” However, as reflected in SIC’s itemization of claims filed in June 2018 (Exhibit “A”) and amended itemization of claims filed in September 2018 (R. Doc. 287-15), SIC is not asserting claims against ADS on those bases. 15 Rule 6 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association provides that: “A party may at any time prior to the close of the hearing or by the date established by the arbitrator increase or decrease the amount of its claims.” 16 Exhibit “C” (Notice of Hearing in ADS arbitration). Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 8 of 16 9 suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration. 9 U.S.C.A. § 3. This statute generally only applies to the parties who signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause. Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mgmt., L.P., 828 F.3d 356, 360 (5th Cir. 2016). However, district courts have discretion “to stay litigation among the non- arbitrating parties pending the outcome of the arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 21 n. 23 (1983). The Fifth Circuit has held that claims among non-signatories can be stayed where: “(1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts; (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation are “inherently inseparable”; and (3) the litigation has a “critical impact” on the arbitration.” Id. (quoting Waste Mgmt., Inc., v. Residuos Industriales Multiquim, S.A. de C.V., 372 F.3d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 2016)). “The question is not ultimately one of weighing potential harm to the interests of the non- signatory, but of determining whether proceeding with litigation will destroy the signatories’ right to a meaningful arbitration.” Waste Mgmt., Inc., 372 F.3d at 343.17 Moreover, “[i]n the context of granting a discretionary stay pending arbitration, the Fifth Circuit has stated that ‘the moving party bears a heavy burden to show why a stay should be granted absent statutory authorization, and a court should tailor its stay so as not to prejudice other litigants unduly.’ ” Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. M/T Bow Fighter, No. 2009 WL 960080, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2009). See Comtide Holdings, LLC v. Booth Creek Mgmt. Corp., 2010 WL 11538079, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2010) (“A court, however, ‘must tread carefully in granting a stay of proceedings, since a party has a right to a determination of its rights and liabilities without undue delay.’ ”) “The party seeking a stay bears the burden of justifying a delay tagged to another legal 17 R. Doc. 284, p. 3-4. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 9 of 16 10 proceeding.” In re Davis, 730 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir. 1984). The party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Id. As recognized in this Court’s prior ruling, in order to exercise the discretionary stay under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act as requested by YAJV, it must be shown that: (1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts; (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation are “inherently inseparable”; and (3) the litigation has a “critical impact” on the arbitration. See Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mgmt., L.P., 828 F.3d 356, 360 (5th Cir. 2016).18 With respect to the first two factors, the arbitration does not involve the same operative facts as this litigation, and the claims in the proceedings are not “inherently inseparable.” As explained above, the arbitration will only involve the rights between SIC and ADS under the Subcontract agreement entered between those two parties.19 It is SIC’s position that ADS can only recover the amount for which the MSPA paid SIC for ADS’s work as stipulated in the ADS/SIC Subcontract, and that SIC is then entitled to backcharge ADS for three (3) specific issues. 18 In Ross v. Quality Homes of McComb, Inc., 2017 WL 5501499, at *7 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2017), this Court recently denied a motion to stay asserted by non-signatories. Specifically, this Court concluded that “the facts central to the litigation against non- signatory-defendants… differ markedly from the operative facts in the arbitration or mediation proceedings against signatory-defendants” and that “[the] litigation… will not ‘critically impact’ the arbitration proceedings… because the ‘operative facts’ linked to the plaintiffs' dispute with the arbitration defendants…differ from the facts relevant to the [plaintiffs’] dispute with the litigation defendants.” Id. at *7. 19 YAJV’s memorandum references and attaches the reports of some of SIC’s experts, Donald Barnes, Michael Carbo, Jerry Householder, and Lance Yarbough. Notably, contrary to what is suggested in YAJV’s summaries of those reports, none of the reports reference ADS. In fact, YAJV’s summaries in its memorandum state that ADS performed the pile-driving operations. This is inaccurate. ADS was not a pile-driving subcontractor. ADS was the concrete subcontractor. This exemplifies YAJV’s complete misunderstanding of the dispute between SIC and ADS. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 10 of 16 11 The first issue for which SIC seeks to charge ADS is for ADS’s failure to pay its vendors, which amounts were then paid by SIC’s surety, Travelers. Travelers is now pursuing SIC for those payments made. That issue is not part of this lawsuit. The remaining two issue for which SIC seeks to charge ADS is for SIC completing portions of ADS’s scope of work. Those issues are also not part of this lawsuit. If the arbitrator rules in favor of SIC on these three (3) issues, then the backcharges will exceed the amounts otherwise due to ADS and SIC should be entitled to an award in the arbitration. If the arbitrator rules against SIC on these issues and any SIC defenses, then ADS might recover on its counterclaim seeking payment of amounts it alleges to be due for work performed.20 However, regardless of the result, the arbitration is completely distinct from SIC’s claims against the consultants and engineering firms in this lawsuit, and the Defendants in this litigation have no interest in the contractual claims between SIC and its subcontractor.21 YAJV’s motion also argues that some of the same witnesses and evidence may be used in the arbitration and this litigation. It is true that SIC and ADS each listed representatives of Defendants as potential witnesses in the arbitration. Since ADS had 20 In its motion, YAJV notes that a portion of ADS’s counterclaim for work performed consists of payments for oversized pile caps. YAJV then notes that “[i]n the present suit, SIC seeks a litany of damages related to pile driving operations from the Defendants.” See YAJV’s memorandum, p. 15. Those claims do not support YAJV’s contention that “SIC seeks to recover many of the same damages from and makes many of the same allegations against the Defendants in this lawsuit that it seeks to recover from and makes against ADS in the arbitration proceeding.” ADS’s claims for work performed relating to oversized caps on pilings are asserted against SIC, not claims asserted by SIC. Therefore, the claims in the arbitration can not be duplicative of claims asserted by SIC in the litigation. 21 See Jones Walker, LLP v. Petaquilla Minerals, Ltd., 2015 WL 3772670, at *5 (E.D. La. June 17, 2015) (“Despite the underlying fact patterns, the matters present independent issues and include two completely separate claims.”) Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 11 of 16 12 listed specific representatives of Defendants by name, counsel for SIC did previously request to depose those named individuals.22 None of those depositions occurred nor are any set (or intended to be set) prior to the April 15-19, 2019 arbitration hearing. Moreover, it is unlikely that any representatives for Defendants will asked to testify by SIC at the arbitration. Nonetheless, representatives of Defendants being listed as potential witnesses in the arbitration does not equate to the same operative facts being at issue or the claims being “inherently inseparable.” Rather, representatives of Defendants are familiar with the work performed on the Project, and therefore, could potentially testify regarding the work ADS completed prior to SIC’s termination and the scope of work that SIC completed for ADS which could be relevant to the arbitration. See Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C., 828 F.3d at 361 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The district court concluded that a stay ‘was not required because the claims are wholly distinct,’ explaining that although the claims against Southwest and the other defendants arose out of the same transaction, ‘they relate to different parts of it.’ ”) Similarly, while some of the same documentary evidence, such as contract documents and pay applications, may be used in both proceedings, this also does establish YAJV’s heavy burden to show that the perquisites for a stay exist. In addition to the arbitration not involving the same operative facts as this litigation, and the claims in the proceedings not being “inherently inseparable”, YAJV has also not established how this litigation will have a “critical impact” on the arbitration. As stated in this Court’s prior ruling, “[t]he question is not ultimately one of weighing 22 SIC did not identify by name any specific representatives of Defendants. Rather, SIC generically identified “[a]ny representative or employee” of the Defendants on its witness list. R. Vol. 287-14. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 12 of 16 13 potential harm to the interests of the non-signatory, but of determining whether proceeding with litigation will destroy the signatories’ right to a meaningful arbitration.”23 See also Vallejo v. Garda CL Sw., Inc., 2013 WL 6190175, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2013) (“The question is not whether or how arbitration will influence the litigation, but whether the litigation will adversely affect the parties' right to arbitrate.”) As such, the pertinent question is whether this litigation will adversely affect the rights of SIC and ADS to a meaningful arbitration. Contrary to YAJV’s argument, this lawsuit will have no effect on the ability of SIC and ADS to arbitrate their dispute, much less a “critical impact” on the arbitration which is necessary to warrant a stay. The arbitration is scheduled for April 15-19, 2019.24 Therefore, there is no possibility that the trial in this matter (which is not scheduled as of the date of this filing) will occur before the arbitration. Further, it is unlikely that any issues could be decided on the merits in this action prior to the conclusion of the arbitration.25 As such, nothing that will occur between now and April 2019 could have an impact on SIC and ADS having a meaningful arbitration, such that the stay requested by YAJV should be denied. SIC’s ability to pursue justice from the Defendants was previously halted for several months pending a determination of the arbitration issue between SIC and the MSPA. That basis for a stay is moot. YAJV and its co-Defendants now wish to further delay these proceedings by misconstruing the claims at issue in the ADS arbitration. “It 23 R. Doc. 284, p. 4. (Citing Waste Mgmt., Inc., 372 F.3d at 343.) 24 See Exhibit “C” (Notice of Hearing in ADS arbitration). 25 No arbitration had been scheduled (or even commenced) between SIC and the MSPA when Defendants previously sought a stay of this lawsuit, as the MSPA was appealing the Circuit Court’s arbitration ruling. As such, it was likely that this lawsuit could have proceeded to trial prior to any arbitration between SIC and the MSPA occurring. This is not the case with respect to the SIC and ADS arbitration. Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 13 of 16 14 is not without cause that the legal maxim ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ is held dear within the mind of the Nation—our society of laws demands those laws be both interpreted and applied with quick dispatch in service of the ‘Justice’ established by our constitutional order.” Virtual Fleet Mgmt., LLC v. Land Air Sea Sys., Inc., 2017 WL 10276709, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2017). SIC requests that this lawsuit be permitted to proceed and that the requested stay be denied. III. CONCLUSION For these reasons, SIC respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the Motion to Stay in its entirety. THIS the 14th day of February, 2019. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC By: /s/ Christopher Solop Christopher Solop, MSB No. 7687 Lynn Patton Thompson, MSB No. 10256 Davis House, MSB No. 105315 Steven B. Loeb, LA Bar Roll No. 19443 (pro hac vice) John T. Andrishok, LA Bar Roll No. 24942 (pro hac vice) Jacob E. Roussel, LA Bar Roll No. 34742 (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC OF COUNSEL: Biggs, Ingram & Solop, PLLC 111 Capitol Building, Suite 101 111 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: 601-987-4822 Facsimile: 601-713-9920 Email: csolop@bislawyers.com lynn.thompson@bislawyers.com dhouse@bislawyers.com Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 14 of 16 15 BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. One American Place, 23rd Floor Post Office Box 3197 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3197 Telephone: 225-387-4000 Fax: 225-381-8029 Email: steven.loeb@bswllp.com; john.andrishok@bswllp.com jacob.roussel@bswllp.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has this date been electronically filed with the Clerk of Court by using the ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following ECF participants: Judson R. Jones jjones@mhdlaw.com David W. Mockbee dmockbee@mhdlaw.com Attorneys for Neel-Schaffer, Inc. Christopher Daniel Meyer cmeyer@burr.com Charles W. Daniels, Jr. bdaniels@burr.com Attorneys for Thompson Engineering, Inc. Kathryn Breard Platt kplatt@gallowaylawfirm.com Ryan M. Hall rhall@gallowaylawfirm.com Attorneys for Quality Engineering Services, Inc. Ronald A. Yarbrough ryarbrough@brunini.com Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 15 of 16 16 Samuel C. Kelly skelly@brunini.com R. Lane Bobo lbobo@brunini.com Attorneys for T.L. Wallace Construction, Inc. Samuel D. Gregory sdgregory@bakerdonelson.com Cable Matthew Frost cfrost@bakerdonelson.com M. David Kurtz - PHV dkurtz@bakerdonelson.com Attorneys for CH2M Hill, Inc. William R. Purdy bpurdy@bradley.com Ralph B. Germany, Jr. rgermany@bradley.com Slates C. Veazey sveazey@bradley.com Attorneys for W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company, Roy Anderson Corp., and Yates Anderson, JV THIS the 14th day of February, 2019. /s/ Christopher Solop Christopher Solop Case 1:17-cv-00255-LG-JCG Document 301 Filed 02/14/19 Page 16 of 16