1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

TCH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, 

INC.; TRM TRANSPORTING, LLC.; 

TIM MONROE; AKERS BUILDING 

SYSTEMS, INC.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 

COMPLAINT

Comes Now Alternative Materials, LLC (“Alternative Materials”), herein 

also referred to as Plaintiff, in the above numbered and styled case, and complains 

of TCH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. (“TCH CONSTRUCTION”), TRM 

TRANSPORTING, LLC (“TRM TRANSPORTING”), TIM MONROE 

(“MONROE”), AKERS BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. (“ARCO”), and herein 

collectively called Defendants, and for cause of action will show to the Court as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF ACTION

1. Alternative Materials is in the business of mining, processing and 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 22
2

selling of limestone which is used to make soil additives used by farmers for their 

seasonal crops. Alternative Materials leases and operates a limestone quarry 

located in Marianna, Florida (the “Quarry”).

2. Two types of raw materials are mined at the Quarry. The first is 

“Ocala Limestone” and the second is “Marianna Limestone.” Both materials are 

used to make “Aglime.” Aglime is used for soil treatments. Its primary purpose is 

to reduce soil acidity. Alternative Materials sales both types of limestone to farmers 

throughout the state of Florida. 

3. Alternative Materials sought to have a storage facility built at the 

Quarry to process and store the Marianna Limestone. Marianna Limestone is 

sensitive to the weather elements and cannot be converted to Aglime when it is 

wet. The storage facility was required to protect and dry the Marianna Limestone 

and maintain its natural qualities until the finished product was ready to ship to 

Alternative Materials customers throughout the state of Florida. The storage 

facility was to hold twenty-five thousand tons of limestone. 

4. Alternative Materials contracted with Defendants TCH Construction 

and Monroe for the purchase, construction, and installation of a manufactured 

gable clear span shed (the “Structure”) at the Marianna, Florida Quarry. The details 

of the agreement were confirmed in a writing exchanged between the parties on 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 22
3

June 8, 2020 (the “Agreement”). Exhibit A: Agreement.

5. The Agreement provided for a payment schedule and total amount due 

from Alternative Materials of $1,540,000. The Agreement included a construction 

timeline with a completion date of August 15, 2020 and a “worst case scenario” 

completion date of September 1, 2020. Id. 

6. Alternative Materials made advance payments totaling $304,000 in 

accordance with the agreed upon schedule to TCH Construction. Exhibit B: Wire 

Transfers.

7. As noted in the Agreement, time was of the essence due to weather 

concerns and customer requirements. Alternative Materials alerted Monroe and 

TCH Construction of completion concerns once it became evident that TCH 

Construction had failed to begin site preparation work and ARCO and TRM 

Transporting had not delivered materials in compliance with the agreed timeline. 

8. The Defendants failed to meet the completion date requirements of the 

Agreement causing damage to Alternative Materials both as to money paid for 

services not rendered, materials not provided, loss of profits and continuing 

damage to Alternative Materials business reputation and profits. 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 3 of 22
4

THE PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Alternative Materials, LLC is a Wyoming limited liability 

company with a principle place of business in Irving, Texas and an active quarry 

and material sales operation in Marianna, Florida. 

10. Defendant TCH Construction Group, Inc. is a corporation 

incorporated under the laws of North Carolina with its principle place of business 

at 1509 W. 5th Street Lumberton, NC 28358. It is deemed a citizen of North 

Carolina for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

11. Defendant Tim Monroe is an individual who upon information and 

belief resides in the state of North Carolina. 

12. Defendant TRM Transporting, LLC upon information and belief is a 

North Carolina limited liability company with its principle place of business at 

1509 W. 5th Street Lumberton, NC 28358. It is deemed a citizen of North Carolina 

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

13. Defendant Akers Building Systems, Inc. is a corporation 

incorporated under the laws of Georgia with a principle place of business located at 

3300 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 201 Peachtree Corners, GA 30092. It is deemed 

a citizen of Georgia for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 4 of 22
5

JURISDICTION & VENUE

14. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(2).

15. The amount in controversy, without interest and costs, exceeds 

$75,000.00.

16. Venue lies in the Northern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b).

17. All conditions precedent for bringing this action have been fully 

performed, waived, or excused. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18. Alternative Materials is in the business of mining, processing, 

marketing and selling limestone soil supplements from its limestone quarry located 

in Marianna, Florida. This limestone is used to make Aglime which is used by 

Alternative Materials’ farming customers located in Florida.

19. Marianna Limestone is particularly sensitive to moisture and will not

convert into Aglime if it is wet. 

20. To protect, dry, process and store the Marianna Limestone,

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 5 of 22
6

Alternative Materials sought contractors for the construction of a metal building or 

a manufactured gable clear span shed (the “Structure”) at the Marianna, Florida 

Quarry (collectively the “Project”).

21. After contact by Monroe, Alternative Materials entered into an 

agreement with Defendants Monroe and TCH Construction in response to a written 

offer which was accepted by Alternative Materials on June 8, 2020. An acceptance 

confirmed by TCH Construction via text message and performance.

22. The Agreement set forth a payment schedule, dimensions and other 

details of the Structure, work dates, timelines, materials, and costs for site 

preparation and installation of the Structure. Monroe and TCH Construction 

selected ARCO as the primary supplier of the Structure components required by 

the Agreement. The components of the Structure were to be supplied by Defendant 

ARCO and delivered by Defendant TRM Transporting, LLC to the Marianna, 

Florida Site. 

23. Construction plans for the Structure required concrete footers to be 

installed at the Site by TCH Construction. TCH Construction indicated that the

footers would take three to four weeks to install and properly cure. 

24. The Structure was to be fabricated by ARCO and delivered by TRM 

Transporting to the Marianna, Florida Site.

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 6 of 22
7

25. Once the footers properly cured, TCH Construction would complete 

construction of the Structure in accordance with the agreed timeline. 

26. The Structure was to be a 200 feet by 400 feet and 30 feet tall, “eve” 

style building. The construction timeline called for the completion of the footers 

by the “third week of July, worst case August 1st” and completion of the total 

Project on “August 15th, worst case scenario of September 1st.” Exhibit A: 

Agreement. 

27. Payment schedules required payments in percentage increments of 

10%, 50%, and 40% with a total payment of $1,540,000 paid at completion of the 

Project (the “Payment Schedule”). Id. 

Amendments to the Agreement

28. On June 18, 2020, Alternative Materials and Monroe agreed to 

modify the size and the type of Structure from a 200 feet by 400 feet building to a 

200 feet by 300 feet “clear span” building to keep the total price of the Project on 

budget at $1,540,000.

29. On June 22, 2020 Alternative Materials paid $154,000 by wire 

transfer to TCH as required by the Payment Schedule of the Agreement. Exhibit 

B: Wire Transfers.

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 7 of 22
8

30. On July 1, 2020 Alternative Materials and Monroe met in Mariana, 

Florida for an on-site Project inspection. At that meeting the parties agreed to 

modify the remaining Payment Schedule. 

31. The modified scheduled provided for a down payment of $150,000

on the purchase of the Structure components. The third payment scheduled was 

modified in order to obtain other required materials for the Structure. The

modified scheduled required the third payment of $450,000 upon completion of the 

footers. The modified fourth payment was the final payment as the remaining 

balance due upon Project completion. 

32. The payment modifications did not in any way change or adjust the 

Project’s timeline or the final price of the Project per the Agreement. 

33. In accordance with the modification on July 8, 2020, Alternative 

Materials wired the second scheduled payment of $150,000 to TCH Construction 

which was paid to ARCO as a down payment for the Structure. Exhibit B: Wire 

Transfers.

Failure of Performance Under the Agreement

34. After the second payment on July 8, 2020, Alternative Materials 

emailed Monroe and TCH Construction expressing concerns at the Defendants 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 8 of 22
9

failure to install the required concrete footers. Alternative Materials expressed its 

concern that the Defendants would not be able to meet the agreed upon modified 

schedule of the “third week of July” for the footers per the Agreement. 

35. Monroe responded to Alternative Materials concerns with a series of 

excuses, misinformation, and requests for additional money.

36. Notwithstanding that the cost of the Structure per ARCO’s invoice to 

TCH Construction was $749,554, on July 8, 2020, Monroe fraudulently indicated 

that the Structure alone would now cost $1,540,000 and an additional 20% down 

payment of $308,000.00 was required. This amount was outside of the payment 

amounts contained in the Agreement and the Payment Schedule.

37. On July 10, 2020, Monroe emailed Alternative Materials requesting

an additional $23,477 for a temporary trailer to be used as an onsite office.

Notwithstanding the request for additional payments above the agreed payments by

the Defendants, construction on the footers had not yet begun.

38. On July 11, 2020, Alternative Materials emailed Monroe concerning 

the construction of the concrete footers. Monroe responded that TCH was in need 

of the building permits and reassured Alternative Materials that the permits would 

not cause delays.

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 9 of 22
10

39. Monroe continued to represent that the Structure was being 

purchased from Defendant ARCO by Defendant TCH Construction and that 

$150,000 of the first scheduled payment was immediately paid to ARCO for

materials in spite of the fact that the first scheduled payment was paid on June 22, 

2020 to TCH Construction for site prep for the concrete footers. The reality was 

that funds had not been paid to ARCO by TCH Construction as of July 9, 2020 as 

previously claimed by Monroe and in fact, was not due to ARCO until July 16, 

2020. Exhibit C: Invoice.

40. On July 17, 2020, Alternative Materials emailed Monroe to express 

serious concerns about the Defendants’ ability to begin construction of the concrete 

footers and meet the construction timeline. Monroe responded with a request for 

more money in the amount of $450,000 to complete payment of the supplies and 

components for the Structure. 

41. TCH Construction’s failure to maintain the construction schedule 

was extremely damaging to Alternative Materials operations because its clients 

include Florida peanut farmers with seasonal Aglime requirements. The Mariana

Limestone would be in high demand by the date of the agreed upon completion of 

the Structure. Failure to meet the required timeline did not provide enough time for 

Alternative Materials to harvest the correct tonnage of limestone, process and 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 10 of 22
11

secure it in the Structure, and maintain the product to meet the demands of its 

customers. 

42. Although Alternative Materials continued to make its concerns 

known to Monroe about the progress of the Project, the Defendants failed to meet 

the construction timeline and the “worst case scenario” timeline dates causing loss 

profits and damage to Alternative Materials reputation.

43. Monroe and TCH Construction was unable to produce the building 

permits for the Project as requested by Alternative Materials.

44. The Defendants have failed to complete construction of the Project at 

the Site as required by the Agreement.

45. The Structure was not delivered by Defendants ARCO and TRM 

Transporting. 

46. Defendant ARCO did not provide or make available the Structure to 

Alternative Materials and did not return payments made. ARCO canceled the 

order and retained the down payment.

47. Monroe and TCH Construction failed to meet the terms of the 

Agreement and ARCO has canceled Alternative Materials order with no 

assignment of the supplies for the Structure or return of the down payment.

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 11 of 22
12

48. When no work was completed or materials delivered, Alternative 

Materials notified Defendants it would suffer irreparable harm, canceled the 

Agreement, began to mitigate its damages and filed this lawsuit.

COUNT I- Breach of Contract

Against Defendants TCH Construction, and Tim Monroe

49. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-48

as though fully set forth herein. 

50. Plaintiff, Monroe, and TCH Construction are parties to a contract, 

the Agreement.

51. Plaintiff performed its duties under the contract by paying the 

required payments under the Agreement. 

52. Monroe and TCH Construction breached the Agreement, including 

but not limited to failure to begin construction, not completing the construction

according to the timeline contained in the Agreement, and not providing accurate 

information regarding the progress of the Project. 

53. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, damages caused by TCH 

Construction and Monroe’s breach of the Agreement. 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 12 of 22
13

COUNT II- Breach of Contract 

Against ARCO and TRM Transporting 

54. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-48

as though fully set forth herein. 

55. Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary to contracts between ARCO

and TCH Construction regarding the purchase of the Structure. ARCO was to 

provide the Structure to TCH Construction for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff paid funds to 

Defendants for services and components that were not rendered.

56. Plaintiff did not receive the intended benefit of the Agreement. 

57. Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary to contracts between TCH 

Construction and TRM Transporting. TRM Transporting was to deliver the 

Structure and materials and components to be provided by ARCO. The Structure 

was never delivered to Plaintiff. 

58. Through information and belief funds were paid to ARCO and TRM 

Transporting from TCH Construction that were provided to TCH Construction for 

those purposes by Plaintiff. 

59. Plaintiff did not receive the intended benefit of the Agreement. 

60. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, damages caused by ARCO

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 13 of 22
14

and TRM Transporting. 

COUNT III- Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Against TCH Construction and Monroe

61. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-48

as though fully set forth herein. 

62. TCH Construction and Monroe made false and misleading 

statements regarding material facts relating to the Agreement. At the time Plaintiff 

and TCH Construction entered into the Agreement, Monroe and TCH Construction 

represented itself as having the ability to do the work on the Project as described in 

the Agreement. 

63. TCH Construction and Monroe knew, or should have known, that the 

statements and representations relating to the construction on the Project as well as 

the timeline were false at the time they entered into the Agreement. 

64. TCH Construction and Monroe also made false statements to the 

Plaintiff regarding the status and timing of payments from the funds that were paid 

to them by the Plaintiff. 

65. TCH Construction and Monroe made the false statements and 

representations to Alternative Materials with the intent to induce Alternative 

Materials to enter into the Agreement and reap substantial, unjustified fees and 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 14 of 22
15

other benefits.

66. Plaintiff suffered damages acting in reliance on TCH Construction 

and Monroe’s false statements and representations.

COUNT IV- Fraud in the Inducement 

Against TCH Construction and Monroe

67. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-48

as though fully set forth herein. 

68. TCH Construction and Monroe represented from the outset that they 

could complete the Project by August 15, 2020 Defendants knew that providing

this timeline on the Project would give them a competitive advantage on securing

the job from Plaintiff. 

69. TCH Construction and Monroe were aware of the purpose and need 

for the building structure in that the limestone would be stored to preserve its 

natural quality in order to meet demand. TCH Construction and Monroe had 

knowledge of the Plaintiff’s business timeline and utilized the date of August 15, 

2020 to obtain Plaintiff’s participation in the Agreement. 

70. The above representation by TCH Construction and Monroe were 

knowingly and intentionally false. Defendants were not concerned with completing 

the Project on time nor completing the job under “worst case scenarios” as 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 15 of 22
16

described in the Agreement. Defendants’ only concern was securing the Agreement 

and to obtain payment when they knew they could not complete the Project on 

time. 

71. TCH Construction and Monroe intended for the Plaintiff to rely on 

their misrepresentation, and Plaintiff did rely on the misrepresentation by 

expending time, effort and sales expertise in preparing for the high volume season 

and production of Mariana Limestone to meet the seasonal demand. 

72. Plaintiffs were damaged by their reliance upon Defendants’ 

misrepresentations when, pursuant to their fraudulent scheme, Monroe and TCH 

Construction took money from the Plaintiff for the Project, never began work on 

the Project, and failed to meet the construction timeline of August 15th or their 

“worst case scenario” timeline.

COUNT V- UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Against all Defendants

73. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-48

as though fully set forth herein. 

74. By, inter alia, paying substantial payments, fees, expenses, and other 

amounts under the Agreement to TCH Construction, TCH Construction has 

received a benefit.

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 16 of 22
17

75. TCH Construction voluntarily accepted and retained the benefits 

received from the Plaintiff.

76. Monroe, ARCO and TRM Transporting have all received funds from 

TCH Construction that were paid by the Plaintiff without providing the 

corresponding benefit to the Plaintiff.

COUNT VI- Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Against TCH Construction 

77. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-48

as though fully set forth herein. 

78. Plaintiff and TCH Construction are parties to a contract, the 

Agreement.

79. Plaintiff did all or substantially all, of the actions required of it by the 

terms of the Agreement by making payments to TCH Construction.

80. All conditions that were required of the Plaintiff were met. 

81. Defendant TCH Constriction never started the construction of the 

Project. 

82. Plaintiff was damaged by TCH Construction’s’ conduct. 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 17 of 22
18

COUNT VII- FRAUD

Against TCH Construction and Monroe

83. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-48

as though fully set forth herein.

84. Monroe and TCH Construction provided false banking records to 

Alternative Materials. Monroe and TCH Construction sent wiring documents to 

Plaintiff falsely representing that $150,000 of Plaintiff’s payment had been sent to 

ARCO in late June for supplies on the building. 

85. Monroe and TCH Construction made false statements for the costs of 

the Structure. Monroe and TCH Construction represented to the plaintiff that the 

cost of supplies for the Structure alone would amount to $1,540,000 and that the

plaintiff would need to pay 20% more down.

86. Monroe and TCH Construction supplied false information regarding

permits needed for the Project to the Plaintiff. Monroe and TCH Construction 

continued to represent that they were working on obtaining building permits. The 

stated type of permits would change from drainage permits to obtaining general 

building permits. Monroe and TCH Construction finally falsely represented to 

Plaintiff that they would not need any building permit in the state of Florida for the 

Project. 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 18 of 22
19

87. These above records and statements were known by Defendants 

Monroe and TCH Construction to be false at the time they were made. Defendants 

Monroe and TCH Construction had not received a quote from ARCO at the time 

Monroe and TCH Construction presented the falsified bank documents to Plaintiff.

Monroe and TCH Construction modified their position with Plaintiff based on 

communications with ARCO, which included the 20% down payment of $150,000. 

Monroe and TCH construction knew there had not been a price change with ARCO 

after the modified agreement yet represented such an increase to Plaintiff that

reflected the increase of 20% to $308,000. Monroe and TCH construction also 

knew that building permits would be needed in the state of Florida for the Project, 

especially for a Project that required a professional engineer licensed in Florida. 

88. These false statements were made for the purpose of inducing the 

Plaintiff to act in reliance of the statements. Each record or statement by Monroe

and TCH Construction was fraudulently made to either satisfy the concerns of the 

Plaintiff or wrongfully obtain additional money outside the Payment Schedule and 

outside the total amount for the Project. 

89. The Plaintiff relied on the false information provided by Monroe and 

TCH Construction. Plaintiff was led to believe that TCH Construction had sent 

ARCO money for the Structure in late June, that the adjusted down payment was a 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 19 of 22
20

new reflection in ARCO’s price which Plaintiff could not afford, and that all 

building permits for the Project had been properly investigated by Monroe and 

TCH Construction.

90. Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damage from the actions of 

Defendants Monroe and TCH Construction.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Alternative Materials demands judgment against 

Defendants as follows:

a) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determine at trial;

b) Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

c) Punitive damages;

d) Rescission of the Agreement;

e) A declaration that the Agreement is void;

f) All costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs; and

g) Such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and 

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 20 of 22
21

proper. 

Demand For Jury Trial

Plaintiff in the above-styled case hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues 

so triable as a matter of right.

This the 9th day of September, 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ E. Kirk Wood 

E. KIRK WOOD (#831816)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

E. KIRK WOOD

MICHAEL E. GURLEY, JR.

WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC

P. O. Box 382434

Birmingham, Alabama 35238-2434

Telephone: (205) 612-0243

Facsimile: (866) 747-3905

Kirk@Woodlawfirmllc.com

mgurleyjr@yahoo.com

VIC BAKER (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)

VIC BAKER ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 

P.O. Box 31

Moody, AL 35004

Telephone: (205) 478-1608

vicbakerlaw@gmail.com

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 21 of 22
22

REQUEST FOR SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL

Pursuant to FRCP 4.1 and 4.2, Plaintiff request service of the foregoing 

Complaint by certified mail.

SERVE DEFENDANTS BY CERTIFIED MAIL AS FOLLOWS:

TCH Construction Group, Inc. 

997 Harris Road

Lumberton, NC 28358

Timothy W. Monroe

1509 W. 5th Street

Lumberton, NC 28358

TRM Transporting, LLC

1509 W. 5th St.

Lumberton, NC 28358

Akers Building Systems, Inc.

c/o Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

1960 Satellite Blvd., Suite 4000

Duluth, GA 30097

By: /s/ E. Kirk Wood 

E. KIRK WOOD 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/09/20 Page 22 of 22