Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, UK Subscribing to Policy No. B1230ap56189a14 v. Fire & Life Safety America, Inc.

MOTION for partial summary judgment against Defendant, Ocean Walk Resort Condominium Association, Only and Certificate of Service

M.D. Fla.September 13, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON, UK SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. B1230AP56189A14 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:16-cv-00258-Orl-37GJK Consolidated for Discovery, Only with Case No. 6:16-cv-00273-Orl-37GJK OCEAN WALK RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. and FIRE & LIFE SAFETY AMERICA, INC. Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT, OCEAN WALK RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ONLY Plaintiff, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, UK Subscribing to Policy No. B1230AP56189A14, moves this Court for partial summary judgment on Counts One and Two of its Second Amended Complaint, which are directed at Defendant, Ocean Walk Resort Condominium Association, Inc. (“OWRCA”), only. Plaintiff relies upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 in so moving the Court. In sum, the undisputed facts and applicable law, as detailed in the Memorandum of Legal Authority included herein, unequivocally demonstrate that OWRCA is liable to Plaintiff under theories of negligence and breach of contract. The issue of the extent of Plaintiff’s damages are the only issue left to adjudicate once this Court considers this Motion. Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID 743 2 MEMORANDUM OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES The undisputed facts and applicable law make clear: 1. OWRCA owed Wyndham1 both common law and contractual duties to conduct all maintenance and inspections necessary to maintain the wet-pipe fire suppression system in the South Tower. 2. To satisfy its duties, OWRCA was required to have annual inspections of the wet- pipe fire suppression system in the South Tower performed in accordance with NFPA 25. 3. OWRCA breached the duties it owed Wyndham by failing to have an NFPA 25- compliant annual inspection of the wet-pipe fire suppression system in the South Tower performed in 2014. 4. NFPA 25 required the annual inspection to be completed before December 3, 2014 (the “Date of Loss”). 5. Had an NFPA 25-compliant annual inspection of the wet-pipe fire suppression system in the South Tower been performed in 2014, the sprinkler coupling that failed on the Date of Loss would have been replaced, thereby preventing the subject loss. As more fully explained herein, resolution of the above issues leaves but one subject to further litigate – damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff asks this Court to grant it partial summary judgment against OWRCA, only, on Counts One and Two of its Second Amended Complaint. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 1. This lawsuit arises from the failure of a coupling joining two wet sprinkler system pipes (the “Loss Event”) at the Ocean Walk Resort located at 300 North Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, FL (the “Resort”). The Loss Event occurred on December 3, 2014 (the “Date of Loss”). The Resort is comprised of two towers. The Loss Event occurred in the South Tower, which is comprised of units, some of which are privately owned condominium units and the balance being timeshare units. The timeshare units are Wyndham property, which are held by Ocean Walk Vacation Ownership Association, Inc., a Wyndham-affiliated company. The 1 As this Court is aware, Plaintiff’s rights are derived from the payments it made to Wyndham, its insured, as a result of the loss at issue in this litigation. Wyndham owns certain units in the South Tower of the Ocean Walk Resort. Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID 744 3 privately owned condominium units are owned by individuals who are members of OWRCA. See ECF Doc. 33 2 - ¶ 3. See also ECF Doc. 69 3 - ¶ 3. 2. On the Date of Loss, Certain Underwriters insured the real and personal property comprising the Wyndham timeshare units, and any affiliated common areas, in the South Tower in accordance with the policy of insurance attached as Exhibit 1 to Certain Underwriters’ First Amended Complaint. Both Wyndham and Ocean Walk Vacation Ownership Association, Inc. are named insureds on Certain Underwriters’ policy. Hereinafter, Wyndham and Ocean Walk Vacation Ownership Association, Inc. will be collectively referred to as “Wyndham.” See ECF Doc. 33 - ¶ 4. 3. Since February 2011, Wyndham has paid OWRCA assessment fees based on its percentage (calculated by unit) of ownership in the South Tower. In exchange for those fees, OWRCA agreed to provide, in part, all maintenance, service, and inspections necessary to maintain the wet-pipe fire suppression system and all fire alarm panels in the South Tower. See ECF Doc. 33 - ¶ 8. See also ECF Doc. 69 - ¶ 8. 4. In February 2011, OWRCA retained Defendant, Fire & Life Safety America, Inc. (“FLSA”), to conduct all maintenance for, in addition to all quarterly and annual inspections of, the wet-pipe fire suppression system and all fire alarm panels serving the South Tower (“FLSA’s Scope of Work”) in accordance with all applicable laws, codes, and standards, including NFPA 25. FLSA was retained to provide these services for the entire South Tower by OWRCA, which included those units and areas owned by Wyndham. OWRCA’s retention of FLSA occurred on 2 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. 3 OWRCA’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID 745 4 February 11, 2011. See ECF Doc. 33 - ¶ 9. See also ECF Doc. 69 - ¶ 9. [Exhibit 1 – Transcript of the Deposition of Jack Medovich 4 - 15:4-10; 63:22-64:15; 65:10-17; and 112:21-25.] 5. Pursuant to all applicable laws, codes, and standards, including NFPA 25, the obligation to maintain the wet-pipe fire suppression system in the South Tower and have it inspected on annual and quarterly bases fell upon OWRCA, as Wyndham’s property manager. See Florida Statute § 633.312(2). See also NFPA 25 § 4.1.2.3. [Exhibit 2 – Report of Plaintiff’s forensic expert, Stephen Kowkabany, P.E. - § 4.0, ¶ 2.] 6. Although NFPA 25 and the Florida Fire Prevention and Control Code (see Chapter 633 of the Florida Statutes) contemplate that a property owner/manager like OWRCA will retain a licensed vendor, like FLSA, to carry out code compliant maintenance and inspections, OWRCA’s duty to comply with the Florida Fire Prevention and Control Code is a non-delegable one. Trembath v. Beach Club, Inc. 860 So.2d 512 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2003), citing Del Risco v. Industrial Affiliates, Ltd., 556 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). [Exhibit 2 - § 4.0, ¶ 2.] 7. Historically, FLSA conducted NFPA 25-compliant quarterly inspections of the wet-pipe sprinkler system in the South Tower in the first, second, and third quarters of each calendar year. [Exhibit 1 - 65:22-25.] 8. FLSA typically performed the annual inspection of the sprinkler system in the South Tower in September. [Exhibit 1 – 66:1-4.] 9. FLSA performed the 2013 annual inspection of the sprinkler system in the South Tower on September 25, 2013. [Exhibit 3 – Handwritten Inspection Report.] 10. It was FLSA’s practice in 2014 to schedule the next annual inspection (the 2014 annual) within 30 days of the one-year anniversary of the 2013 annual inspection. [Exhibit 1 – 4 Mr. Medovich is a Senior Vice President with FLSA, as well as a licensed professional engineer specializing in fire protection engineering. [Exhibit 1 – 40:13-14 and 41:2-8.] Mr. Medovich was presented as FLSA’s corporate representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). [Exhibit 1 – 5:3-6.] Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID 746 5 80:17-81:5.] The 2013 annual inspection occurred on or about September 25, 2013. See ECF Doc. 33 - ¶ 16. See also ECF Doc. 69 - ¶ 16. 11. Neither FLSA, nor any other licensed fire suppression system contractor, conducted an annual inspection of the sprinkler system in the South Tower in 2014. See ECF Doc. 33 - ¶ 20. [Exhibit 1 – 88:12-14.] 12. The 2008 edition of NFPA 25 applied to annual inspections of sprinkler systems on the Date of Loss. [Exhibit 1 - 74:21-25 and 80:3-6.] [Exhibit 2 - § 2.0.] 13. The 2008 edition of NFPA 25 required all sprinkler system piping and couplings/fittings attached thereto to be inspected during an annual inspection. See NFPA § 6.2.1 and 6.2.3. See also ECF Doc. 33 - ¶ 16. [Exhibit 1 - 76:11-17.] [Exhibit 2 - § 4.0, ¶ 3.] 14. The Loss Event occurred because the coupling at issue was corroded to the point that the bolt holding the coupling in place failed, allowing the riser pipes it was joining together to separate, resulting in water escaping the piping. [Exhibit 2 - § 4.0, ¶ 1.] 15. Corrosion is a build-up of rust, degradation of pipe and/or fittings, sprinkler heads. [Exhibit 1 - 97:24-98:2.] 16. The coupling at issue would have been sufficiently corroded to warrant replacement upon visual inspection during a NFPA 25-compliant visual inspection if one occurred within 30 days of the one-year anniversary of the 2013 NFPA 25 annual inspection. [Exhibit 2 - §4.0, ¶¶ 2 and 3.] 17. The coupling would have been replaced prior to the Date of Loss had a NFPA 25- compliant annual inspection of the sprinkler system in the South Tower occurred in accordance with industry standards. [Exhibit 2 - § 4.0, ¶ 3.] Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID 747 6 18. OWRCA was obligated, as the property manager for the South Tower, to ensure a NFPA 25-compliant annual inspection of the sprinkler system in the South Tower occurred in 2014, before the Date of Loss. [Exhibit 2 - §4.0, ¶ 2.] 19. The Loss Event caused damage to the South Tower, including those areas owned by Wyndham. See ECF Doc. 33 - ¶ 23. See also ECF Doc. 69 - ¶ 23. See also the Complaint filed by OWRCA and its insurer, Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, in case no. 6:16-cv- 00273-Orl-37GJK. ARGUMENT I. The Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). As to issues for which the movant would bear the burden of proof at trial, the “movant must affirmatively show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and support its motion with credible evidence demonstrating that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party on all of the essential elements of its case.” Landolfi v. City of Melbourne, Fla., 515 F. App'x 832, 834 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993)). As to issues for which the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial, the movant has two options: (1) the movant may simply point out an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case; or (2) the movant may provide “affirmative evidence demonstrating that the nonmoving party will be unable to prove its case at trial.” U.S. v. Four Parcels of Real Prop. in Green & Tuscaloosa Cntys. in State of Ala., 941 F.2d 1428, 1438 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325). Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID 748 7 “The burden then shifts to the non-moving party, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists.” Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fitzpatrick, 2 F.2d at 1115–17). “A factual dispute is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Four Parcels, 941 F.2d at 1437 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Battle v. Bd. of Regents, 468 F.3d 755, 759 (11th Cir. 2006). However, “[a] court need not permit a case to go to a jury...when the inferences that are drawn from the evidence, and upon which the non-movant relies, are ‘implausible.’ ” Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 1996). II. Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment on Count One of Its Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff alleges a claim of negligence against OWRCA in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint. See ECF Doc 33 - ¶¶ 31-35. There are four elements of a negligence cause of action: (a) duty; (b) breach; (c) causation; and (d) damages. Miller by and through Miller v. Foster, 686 So.2d 783 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1997), citing Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210, 1214 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1985) review denied, 484 So.2d 8 (Fla.1986). The undisputed facts outlined above demonstrate that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its negligence claim, with the only dispute being the total damages owed Plaintiff. A. Duty As this Court previously noted, the first element of a negligence claim requires a plaintiff to show a “duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.” Fellner v. Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID 749 8 Cameron, No. 2:10-CV-155-FTM-99, 2012 WL 1648886, at *5 (M.D. Fla. May 10, 2012) citing Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Fla.2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Whether a legal duty exists is a question of law. Id., citing Westervelt v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., 76 So.3d 10, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); McKesson Medication Mgmt., LLC v. Slavin, 75 So.3d 308, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). The issue of duty is the easiest for this Court to decide (in Plaintiff’s favor). Both NFPA 25 and Florida Statute § 633.312(2) recognize Wyndham’s right as a non-occupant property owner to engage OWRCA, as a property manager, to maintain the sprinkler system in the South Tower in accordance with NFPA 25, including having all required inspections completed. SUF 5 ¶ 5. NFPA 25 requires annual inspections. Id. Additionally, OWRCA admitted in its Answer that it owed this duty to Wyndham. SUF ¶ 3. This duty is non-delegable. SUF ¶ 6. Accordingly, there is no dispute OWRCA owed Wyndham a duty to have the sprinkler system in the South Tower inspected in accordance with NFPA 25. B. Breach Under Florida law, negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Am. K-9 Detection Servs., Inc. v. Rutherford Int'l, Inc., No. 614CV1988ORL37TBS, 2016 WL 2744958, at 11 (M.D. Fla. May 11, 2016) citing Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow Int'l, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1288 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (quoting Florida Standard Jury Instructions for Civil Cases [Reorganized], Instruction 401.4), aff'd, 634 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011). Reasonable care is that degree of care which a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Id. Negligence may consist either in doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances, or in failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances. Id. 5 Statement of Undisputed Facts. Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID 750 9 It is undisputed OWRCA never performed, or had a qualified vendor perform, a NFPA 25-compliant annual inspection of the sprinkler system in the South Tower in 2014. SUF ¶ 11. Thus, there is no dispute OWRCA breached its legal duty. There is no way minds could differ on this issue. OWRCA admits it owed Wyndham the duty to have an annual inspection of the sprinkler system performed in 2014 and it simply failed to have one done. There is nothing reasonable about OWRCA’s actions. Rather, it simply failed to meet the degree of care required of it. C. Causation Summary judgment in a negligence action is usually not feasible because of the causation standard. Am. K-9 Detection Servs., Inc., supra. Negligence is a legal cause of loss, injury or damage if it directly and in a natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such loss, injury or damage, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred. Id. In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury or damage, negligence need not be the only cause. Id. In the instant matter, it is undisputed:  the Loss Event arises from the failure of a coupling joining two wet sprinkler system pipes in the South Tower of the Resort - SUF ¶ 1  OWRCA owed Wyndham a duty to have the sprinkler system in the South Tower inspected on an annual basis, in accordance with NFPA 25 - SUF ¶¶ 3, 5, and 6  a NFPA 25-compliant annual inspection includes an inspection of all couplings and fitting adjoining piping - SUF ¶ 13  and no annual inspection occurred in 2014. SUF ¶ 11 More importantly, the undisputed facts show that the Loss Event occurred because the coupling at issue was corroded to the point that the bolt holding the coupling in place failed, Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID 751 10 allowing the riser pipes it was joining together to separate, resulting in water escaping the piping. SUF ¶ 14. Importantly, the coupling at issue would have been sufficiently corroded to warrant replacement upon visual inspection during a NFPA 25-compliant visual inspection. SUF ¶ 16. The NFPA 25-compliant annual inspection would have occurred prior to the Date of Loss, had OWRCA scheduled one in compliance with the timing standards of NFPA 25. SUF ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 16, and 17. Accordingly, the Loss Event would not have occurred but for OWRCA’s failure to have the annual inspection completed at the proper time in 2014. SUF ¶ 17. Based upon the above, Plaintiff has shown OWRCA’s failure to schedule an annual inspection of the sprinkler system in 2014 was both the legal and “but, for” cause of the Loss Event. OWRCA will not be able to point to any evidence contesting the above facts. As the non- moving party, OWRCA must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Am. K-9 Detection Srvs., Inc., supra, at 8, citing Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115–17 (11th Cir. 1993)). A factual dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id., citing Four Parcels, 941 F.2d at 1437 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248) (1986). Plaintiff suspects Defendant will rely upon blanket denials of the undisputed facts, instead of pointing to any affirmative evidence disputing the same. D. Damages Plaintiff is not asking this Court to determine the extent of its damages at this time. However, it is undisputed that the Loss Event caused damage to the South Tower, which includes property owned by Wyndham and insured by Plaintiff. SUF ¶ 19. Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID 752 11 II. Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment on Count Two of Its Second Amended Complaint The analysis applicable to Plaintiff’s negligence claim applies to its breach of contract claim. The elements of a breach of contract action are (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages. Beck v. Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913, 914 (11th Cir. 1999) citing Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So.2d 1338, 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). It is undisputed a valid contract existed between Wyndham and OWRCA. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and admitted by OWRCA in its Answer thereto: Since February 2011, Wyndham has paid OWRCA assessment fees based on its percentage (calculated by unit) of ownership in the South Tower. In exchange for those fees, OWRCA agreed to provide, in part, all maintenance, service, and inspections necessary to maintain the wet-pipe fire suppression system and all fire alarm panels in the South Tower. SUF ¶ 3. As explained herein, OWRCA breached its contract with Wyndham by failing to have a NFPA 25-compliant annual inspection of the sprinkler system in the South Tower performed in 2014. SUF ¶ 11. OWRCA’s failure to have a 2014 annual inspection performed caused the Loss Event and the resultant damage to Wyndham’s property, and thus, Plaintiff. SUF ¶¶ 8-10, 14, 16, 17, and 19. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. CONCLUSION The undisputed facts show Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on both its negligence and breach of contract claims. The only issue to resolve at trial is the amount of Plaintiff’s recoverable damages. OWRCA may argue that Defendant FLSA, with whom Plaintiff has reached a settlement, bears some liability for Plaintiff’s damages. This argument should not sway the Court as the law is clear that OWRCA may not delegate its responsibility for having the sprinkler system in the South Tower inspected in accordance with NFPA 25. SUF ¶ 6. See Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID 753 12 Trembath v. Beach Club, Inc. 860 So.2d 512 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2003), citing Del Risco v. Industrial Affiliates, Ltd., 556 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter summary judgment in its favor as requested herein. Respectfully Submitted, DENENBERG TUFFLEY PLLC /s/ Paul A. Casetta _______________________________ Alyssa J. Endelman Paul A. Casetta 28411 Northwestern Hwy. Suite 600 Southfield, MI 48034 aendelman@dt-law.com pcasetta@dt-law.com (248) 549-3900 (p) (248) 593-5808 (f) Dated: September 13, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 13, 2016, I electronically filed the aforementioned document with the Clerk of the Court and served all parties using the CM/ECF System. Respectfully Submitted, DENENBERG TUFFLEY PLLC /s/ Paul A. Casetta _______________________________ Alyssa J. Endelman Paul A. Casetta 28411 Northwestern Hwy. Suite 600 Southfield, MI 48034 aendelman@dt-law.com pcasetta@dt-law.com (248) 549-3900 (p) (248) 593-5808 (f) Dated: September 13, 2016 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77 Filed 09/13/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID 754 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 49 PageID 755 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 49 PageID 756 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 49 PageID 757 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 4 of 49 PageID 758 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 5 of 49 PageID 759 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 6 of 49 PageID 760 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 7 of 49 PageID 761 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 8 of 49 PageID 762 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 9 of 49 PageID 763 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 10 of 49 PageID 764 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 11 of 49 PageID 765 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 12 of 49 PageID 766 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 13 of 49 PageID 767 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 14 of 49 PageID 768 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 15 of 49 PageID 769 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 16 of 49 PageID 770 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 17 of 49 PageID 771 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 18 of 49 PageID 772 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 19 of 49 PageID 773 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 20 of 49 PageID 774 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 21 of 49 PageID 775 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 22 of 49 PageID 776 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 23 of 49 PageID 777 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 24 of 49 PageID 778 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 25 of 49 PageID 779 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 26 of 49 PageID 780 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 27 of 49 PageID 781 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 28 of 49 PageID 782 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 29 of 49 PageID 783 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 30 of 49 PageID 784 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 31 of 49 PageID 785 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 32 of 49 PageID 786 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 33 of 49 PageID 787 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 34 of 49 PageID 788 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 35 of 49 PageID 789 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 36 of 49 PageID 790 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 37 of 49 PageID 791 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 38 of 49 PageID 792 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 39 of 49 PageID 793 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 40 of 49 PageID 794 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 41 of 49 PageID 795 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 42 of 49 PageID 796 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 43 of 49 PageID 797 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 44 of 49 PageID 798 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 45 of 49 PageID 799 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 46 of 49 PageID 800 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 47 of 49 PageID 801 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 48 of 49 PageID 802 Case 6:16-cv-00258-RBD-GJK Document 77-1 Filed 09/13/16 Page 49 of 49 PageID 803