1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS 

5531, PRAYING FOR 

EXONERATION FROM OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:20-CV-05980 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

LACEY A. COLLIER

MAG. JUDGE HOPE THAI 

CANNON

CLAIMANTS’ OPPOSITION TO SKANSKA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE OR ASSERT SUR-SUR REPLY

Come now, Claimants, represented by the undersigned counsel, to respond in 

opposition to Plaintiffs Skanska USA Civil Southeast Inc. and Skanska USA, Inc.’s

(collectively, “Skanska”) Motion for Leave to File or Assert Sur-Sur Reply in 

Response to Claimants’ Request to Amend the Pleadings to Assert a Claim for 

Intentional Tort. For the foregoing reasons, Claimants respectfully request that the 

Court deny Skanska’s Motion.

1. In the Motion for Leave, Skanska represents that Claimants requested, 

for the first time, leave to amend their Master Claims in Claimants’ Sur-Reply. ECF 

No. 1190 at para. 6.

2. In actuality, however, Claimants sought leave to Amend their Master 

Claims, in the alternative, within Claimants’ Opposition to Skanska’s Amended 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1191 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 5
2

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim that was filed on May 26, 2021. ECF 

No. 1171 at p. 33.

3. Skanska also mischaracterizes Claimants’ position as set forth both in 

Claimants’ Opposition and Claimants’ Sur-Reply by implying that Claimants did 

not state an intentional tort claim. In both instances, however, Claimants sought

only leave to amend, in the alternative, should the Court be inclined to find that an 

intentional tort has not been set forth. See ECF No. 1184 at p. 4. (“However, should 

the Court find that an intentional tort cannot be stated without setting it forth as a 

labeled count separate from the gross negligence count, Claimants respectfully 

request the opportunity to amend their master claims accordingly.”) Claimants 

maintain their position that they have adequately pled an intentional tort claim.

4. To the extent that Skanska seeks to oppose Claimants’ request, in the 

alternative, for leave to amend, Skanska was afforded ample opportunity to do so in 

their June 2, 2021 Reply. ECF. No. 1179.

5. This morning, Skanska’s counsel asked the undersigned counsel for the 

first time whether Claimants would object if Skanska were to file leave to file a sursur reply.

6. Claimants’ counsel responded in short order and advised Skanska 

Counsel that Claimants do object to Skanska’s Motion for Leave based on several 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1191 Filed 06/18/21 Page 2 of 5
3

reasons beyond the fact that Skanska’s Motion for Leave mischaracterizes 

Claimants’ repeated requests, in the alternative, for leave to amend.

7. Skanska’s Motion for Leave was made on the evening of the Friday 

before the parties are set to argue the underlying Motions before the Court next 

Monday morning. Granting Skanska’s request for leave to file its sur-sur reply 

would leave virtually no time for the Court or Claimants to review and prepare for 

whatever Skanska intends to raise. This would amount to significant prejudice to 

Claimants’ ability to prepare for Monday morning’s oral arguments.

8. Amplifying that prejudice would be the fact that Claimants would have 

to wait for, and then prepare for, whatever Skanska intends to raise in their sur-sur 

reply, which distracts the Court and Claimants from ongoing efforts to prepare for 

Monday morning’s oral arguments.

9. Given that Claimants’ Sur-Reply was filed a week before on June 11, 

2021, Skanska provides the Court no explanation for its decision to wait until the 

night of June 18, 2021 to seek leave to file a sur-sur reply.

10. Finally, Claimants disagree that any new issues were raised in their SurReply, as shown above.

WHEREFORE, Claimants represented by the undersigned law firms, 

respectfully request that this Court deny Skanska’s request for leave to file a sur-sur 

reply in relation to Skanska’s Motion to Dismiss.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1191 Filed 06/18/21 Page 3 of 5
4

/s/ Brian H. Barr

BRIAN H. BARR, FL Bar 493041

EMMANUELLA J. PAULOS, FL Bar 99010

Levin Papantonio Rafferty Proctor 

Buchanan O’Brien Barr & Mougey, P.A.

316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600

Pensacola, FL 32502

Office: (850) 435-7000

bbarr@levinlaw.com

epaulos@levinlaw.com

and

/s/ E. Samuel Geisler

E. SAMUEL GEISLER, FL Bar # 83817

BRYAN F. AYLSTOCK, FL Bar # 78263

Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC

17 East Main Street, Second floor

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Office: (850) 202-1010

Fax: (850) 916-7449

sgeisler@awkolaw.com

baylstock@awkolaw.com

sallyteam@awkolaw.com

and 

/s/ Thomas F. Gonzalez 

THOMAS F. GONZALEZ, FL Bar #173878 

J. NIXON DANIEL, III, FL Bar # 228761

Beggs & Lane, RLLP

501 Commendencia Street 

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Office: (850) 432-2451

tfg@beggslane.com

jnd@beggslane.com

Attorneys for Claimants

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1191 Filed 06/18/21 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of June, 2021, I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will 

send a notice of electronic filing to all attorneys of record. 

/s/ Brian H. Barr

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1191 Filed 06/18/21 Page 5 of 5