F o r a m o re d e ta iled re c itatio n o f t h e len g thy fa c tua l an d p ro c e d u ra l histo ry o f t h is c a se , se e this C o u rt’s 1 June 1 6 , 20 0 8 M em o randum O p i ni o n. 1 JOHN F LYNN, e t al

. , Pla int if fs , v . DICK CORP ORATION, De fe nd ant. UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OFCO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 03-1718 ( AK)

M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION Pending be fore the Court are Def endant Dic k Corporation’s Motion for Rec onsideration and for L eave to Supplement the Record [73], P laintiff Fund’ s Opposition [ 77], and Defe ndant Dick Corporation’s Reply [79] . Upon consider ation of the plea dings, the rec ord, and the rele vant circ umstances of

the ca se, the Court will g rant De fenda nt’s motion.

I. Bac kgr ound This case involves Plainti ffs’ c laim that Defe ndant Dick Corpor ation brea ched a Collective Ba

rg ainingAgree ment (“CB A”) that was in ef fec t at its Florida job sites by employing non-union subcontra ctors. (Mem. Op. [64] at 2.) On J une 16, 2008, the Court found “ that there 1 is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct as to the e x istence of a CBAin effe ct at Dick Corpor ation’s Florida job sites such that the Fund is entitled to summary judgme nt.” (

Id . 7.) B eca

use Dick Cor po ratio n d id n ot d isp ute that it br e a c he d th e CB A b y

e mpl oyingno n- un ion

su bc ontr a c tor s,S ec t i o n 5 0 2 (g)(2 ) p ro vid es: 2 I n a n y a ct i on u n der t h i s s u bch apt er by a f i du ci ar y f

or or on be h al f

of a pl an t o e n f

or ce s ec t i on 1145 o f t hi s t i t l e [r eq ui ri ng co nt ri b ut i o ns und er t he t erm s o f a C B A ] i n whi ch a judgm ent i n f avo r of t he p la n is aw a rd e d , t h e c o u rt sh a ll a w a rd the p la n --

(A ) t he unp aid co ntri b uti o ns, (B ) i ntere st o n the u np aid co ntri b uti o ns; (C ) a n a m o u n t eq u a l t o the gr e a te r o f - - (i ) i nt erest on t he unp ai d co nt ri b ut i o ns, or ( i i ) l i qu i dat ed dama g es pr ov i ded f or u n der t h e pl an i n a n a mou n t n ot i n e x ce s s of 20 pe r ce n t ( or s u ch h i g h er pe r ce n t ag e as ma y be pe r mi t t ed u n der Fe der al or Stat e l aw) of t he am o unt de t erm i ned by t he co urt unde r s ub p aragraph (A ), (D ) r easona b l e at t o rney ' s f ees and co st s o f

t he act i o n, t o be pa i d by t he d ef end ant , and ( E ) s uch ot her l ega l or equi t abl e r el i ef as t he cour t deems appropri at e. 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (g )( 2 ). T h e Cour t of

Appea l s h el d t h at “ [ t ] h e Fu n d i s e n t i t l ed t o da mag es r es u l t i n g f r om t h e br ea ch i n t h e f or m of 3 b enef i t co nt ri b ut i o ns ‘ i n a s um eq ual t o t hat whi ch t hey wo ul d have recei ved i f t he agreem ent be t ween t he d ef end ant and t he un i on ha d been f ul l y per f ormed by al l par t i es . ” Fl ynn , 48 1 F.3d at 83 2
- 3 3 (quo t i ng T rs. o f t h e Tea m st ers C on s t r . W

ork ers Local 13, H eal t h & W el f are Tr ust

F un d f or C ol o. v. Haw g N

A ct i on , I

nc. , 651 F. 2d 1384, 1386- 87 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). 2 the Court the n c a lc ulate d th e dama g e s th at D ic k Co rp or atio n o we d to Pla int if fs on a c c ount o f i ts brea ch. ( Id .) Pla int if fs so ught $ 1, 89 3, 73 7. 71 , r e pr e se nti ng$7 27 ,3 45 .7 8 in de lin qu e nt c ontr ibutio ns , $577,983.88 in interest, $577,983.88 in additional interest, $10,424.17 in expenses, and attorney s’ fe es in an amount to be determined later pursua nt to Section 502(g )(2) of the Employ ee Re tirement Income Sec urity Act of 1974 ( “ERI SA”). ( Id .) To esta

blish the amount 2 of contributions that Plaintiffs would have r ece ived abse nt Dick Corpora tion’s brea ch of the CBA , Plaintiffs submit ted a de clar ation from Philip Vivirit o (“V ivirito Decl.”) , an indepe ndent 3 auditor who re viewed D ick Corporation’s books and rec ords. ( Id . 8.) Mr. Vivirito examined the pay roll rec ords of Dic k Corporations’s subcontra ctors “to de termine whic h employees of Dick Cor po ratio n a

nd its su bc ontr a c tor s w e re pe rf

or min g[ ] wor

k” c ov e re d b y

the CB A. ” (3 d V ivi ri to Dec l. [ 59-5] ¶ 4.) The pa y roll rec ords allowed Mr . Vivirito to determine which e mploy ees w ere3

perf ormingcover ed wor

k beca use they “spec ifically

indicated the ty

pe of w ork ea ch employee was pe rfor

ming by stating, ne x t to each e mploy ees na me, ‘bric klayer,’ ‘labore r,’ e tc.” ( Id .) F or one of D ick Corporation’s subcontrac tors, Capform, Inc. (“ Capform” ), Dick Corpor ation failed to provide Mr. Vivirito with cer tified pay roll rec ords, and a ccor dingly Mr. Vivirito “did not have information indicatingthe names of the employees who perf

ormed the w ork or the numbe r of hours that ea ch employee w orked in e ach of the various months covered by the audit.” (

Id . ¶ 7.) Be cause Mr. Vivirito “only had the total number

of man hours attributable to Capform, Inc.’s subcontrac tors in Florida,” Mr. Vivirito “included the se hours in ca lculatingthe damag es owe d by Dick Corporation by

allocatingthem evenly

to eac h month covere d by the audit.” (

Id .) Mr . V ivi ri to’ s “ a

ud it r e ve a le d th at D ic k Co rp .’ s su bc ontr a c tor s f

a ile d to repo rt

and re mit contributions for a total of 155,062 hours paid to its employ ees f or barg ainingunit work perf ormed unde r the F lorida agree ment.” (V ivirito Decl. [61-4] ¶ 7.) Using the contribution rate s set forth in the B lanco De clar ation, Mr. Vivirito determined that Dick Corporation owed delinquent contributions in the amount of $727,345.78. ( Id . ¶¶ 8- 9.) Mr. Vivirito also ca lculated the amount of intere st and additional interest that the F und is entitled to recove r under ERI SA. In acc ordanc e with the Collection Procedures of the Central Collections Unit of the Bricklaye r
an d A lli e d Craft

wor k e rs (“Collection Proce dures” ), Mr. Vivirito assesse d interest on the delinquent contribution at a r ate of fiftee n per c ent per

annum and de termined that the total interest due w as $577,983.88. ( Id . ¶ 10 .) Mr . V ivi ri to a lso a sse sse d a dd iti on a l inte re st i n
acc ordanc e with the Collection Procedur es at a rate of fifte en per

cent pe r annum a

nd deter mined that Dick Corporation owed an a dditional $577,983.88 in int ere st. ( Id . ¶ 11 .) B a se d o n th e se
c a lc ulatio ns , M r. Vi virito c on c lud e d th at D ic k Co rp or atio n o we d a tot a l of $1 ,1 55 ,9 67 .7 6 inT h e p a rtie s se p a ra te ly b rie fed the issu e o f atto rn e ys’ f e e s. ( See P l ai nt i f

f s’ M o t . f o r Att o rney ’ s Fe es [ 7 0 ], 4 D ef end ant ’ s O p p ’ n [76 ], and P l ai nt i f f s’ R ep l y [78 ]. T he C o urt wi l l ad d res s t hat i ss ue i n a s ep arat e M em o randum O rder and O p i ni o n. 4 interest and a dditional interest. ( Id . ¶ 13.) Di c k Co rp or atio n d id n ot c ha lle ng e Pla int if fs ’ c la im f

or atto rn e y s’ fe e s and

c os ts o r t he ir 4 entitlement to, or Mr. Vivirito’s ca lculation of, intere st and additional interest. (Me m. Op. [64] at 9.) Dic k Corporation did, howeve r, cha lleng e Plaintiffs’ ca lculation of delinquent contributions and ar gued that ther e we re “ signific ant disputed materia l fac ts reg ardingthe quantum of contributions” such that a grant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

Plaintiffs on the issue of dama g es would be ina ppropriate . (

Id .) Specific ally , Dick Corpora tion asserted that there wer e disputes about “how much of the w ork subcontra cted by Dick Corporation was
cover ed by

the Florida CBA’ s trade jurisdiction such that this subcontractingviolated the F lorida CBA.” (De f.’s B r. [59] at 23.) In support of this contention, Dick Corporation submi tted decla rations that sug g ested that Mr. V ivirito improperly included wor

k perf ormed by employees of three subcontrac tors - ArtCre te & Restorations, Inc. (“ ArtCrete ”), Johnston & Simm ons Concrete Placingand F inishing, Inc. (“ J ohnston”), and Ca pform, whe n computing the delinquent contributions owed to Plaintiffs. (Mem. Op. at 9.) As to the work pe rfor

med by ArtCrete , Dick Corporation submi tted a dec laration from Wilb e rt E. F ish e r ( “ F ish e r D e c l.” ), Di c k Co rp or atio n’ s G e ne ra l Su pe ri nte nd e nt o n th e Mia

mi Fe dera l Courthouse project. ( Fisher Dec l. [ 59-5] ¶ 1.) Mr. F isher stated that “[e]mploy ees who pe rf or m th e so rt of c on c re te fi nis hin gwo rk

pe rf or me d b y Ar tCr e te & Re sto ratio ns , Inc . o n th is projec t are repr esente d in this geographic are a by Oper ative Plastere rs and Ceme nt Masons International Union, rather than by the B ricklayers a

nd Allied Craftwor

kers ( “B AC”). (

Id . ¶ 4.)5

As to t he wo rk pe rf or me d b y Ca pf or m’ s su bc ontr a c tor s o n th e Mia

mi F e de ra l Co ur

tho us e p ro j ec t , M r. Fi s h er

s t at edth atemp l o yee s wh o p er fo rmth e r eb ar p l ac em en t , co n cr et e f

i n i s h i n g, and conc rete place ment work pe rfor med by Capform’s subc ontrac tors are repr esente d by unions other than the BA C. (

Id . ¶¶ 5- 7.) F inally , as to the work pe rfor med by J ohnston, Dick Corporation submitted a dec laration from Shelby J . Gar dner ( “Ga

rdner Dec l.”), Dic k Corporation’s Projec t Manag er on the For t My ers, F lorida Midfield Ter minal Ex pansion Project. (Ga rdner Dec l. ¶ 1.) Mr. Ga

rdner stated that the wor

k perf ormed by J ohnston on this project was limit ed to the plac ing a

nd finishing of

concr ete slabs a

nd related work a

nd that employees who perf orm this ty

pe of w ork ar e re prese nted by unions other than the B AC. ( Id . ¶¶ 2, 4- 5.) Applying the burden- shifting f rame work set f

orth in Laborers’ Pension Fund v. RE S Environmental Serv ices, Inc
. , 377 F.3d 735 ( 7th Cir. 2004), the Court found that the “g ener alized
an d co n cl u s o ry

al l egat i o n s ” i nth e F i s h er an d Gardn er De cl ar at i o n s we re i n s u ff i ci en tt o ch al l en ge M r . V i v i r i t o ’ s c a l c u l at i o no f d e l i n qu e ntc o ntr i b ut i o n s . ( M e m . O p . [ 6 4 ] at1 0
- 1 1
. ) A c c o r d i n g l y, the Court g rante d summary judgme nt for Plaintiffs on the issue of damag es and or dere d Dick Corporation to pay

the full $1,893,737.71 that Plaintiffs sought. ( Id . 11.) On June 30, 2008, Di c k Co rp or atio n mo ve d th is C ourt to “ a lte r a

nd /or ame nd its June 16 , 2 00 8 ju dgme nt a g a ins t Dick Corporation to deny Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgme nt with respec t to the damag es they seek, a nd order a dama g es trial.” ( Def

.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. [ 67] at 1.) Dick Corporation
ar gu edth atb y

ap p l yi n g Laborers’ Pension Fund and re jectingthe Fishe r and G ardne r Dec larations, “the Court misapplied the law and misconstrue d the re cord e vidence in finding that Di c k Co rp or atio n d id n ot r a ise a g e nu ine dis pute of

mate ri a l f

a c t r e g ard ingthe c ontr ibutio ns to which Plaintiffs are entitled.” ( Id .) Dick Corpor ation further argued that a da

mag es trial wa s6

nece ssary to resolve the $1,314,175.80 f actua l dispute created by

the Fishe r and G ardne r Dec larations. (

Id .) This Court reviewe d the re levant leg al standar ds and conc luded that while it was c orre ct in holding that Dick Corpor ation failed to de monstrate a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to the calc ulation of damag es for work pe rfor

med by Capform’s subc ontrac tors, the Court’s application of evide ntiary

burden unde r Laborers’ Pension Fund Ar tCr e te and

John so n w a s in a

pp ro pr iate in light of the fac t that there w as no def iciency in pay roll or other c ompany

rec ords. (Mem. Op. [71] at 9. ) Wi tho ut t

he he ighte ne d e vid e nti ary burd e n, Ar

tCr e te and

John sto n n e e de d o nly

to point to specific fa cts in the rec ord to cre ate a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t for trial, a

nd the Court found that the F isher and G ardne r De clar ation wer e suff icient in so doing. (

Id. ) A s a result, the Court orde red a damag es trail on the issue of the amount of damag es, if any , that Dick Corporation must pay

Plaintiffs for cove red w ork per formed by the two subcontra ctors. ( Id. ) On the c la ims c on c e rn ingCa pf or m, h ow e ve r, the Court

re a so ne d th at D ic k Co rp or atio n’ s f a ilure to pr ov ide Mr . V ivi tr io w ithpa y ro ll r e c or ds fr om C a

pf or m pr e ve nte d h im f

ro m a c c ur ate ly deter mining the a

mount and ty

pe of w ork pre formed unde r Laborers Pension Fund . ( Id. at8
. ) In light of suc h a def

iciency in rec ords, the Court conc luded that the burde n fell on Dick Corporation to introduce spe cific f actua l assertions to dispute Mr. Vivirito’s calc ulations. ( Id. ) Be cause , as the Court found in its earlier Memora ndum Opinion, the Fisher de clar ation, which was off ere d by Dick Corporation as cre atinga g enuine issue of materia l fac t work per formed by Capform’s subc ontrac tors, contained the prec ise ty pes of “ g ener alized and conc lusory alleg ations” that we re insuff icient to preve nt summary judgme nt in Laborers’ Pension Fund, the Court determined that it shoul d not alter its earlier rulingwith respec t to Capform. ( Id. at 8-9.)7

Dick Corporation subsequently moved for r econside ration and f or leave to supplement the re cord w ith the Capform subcontra ctors’ c ertified pa y rolls. (Def

.’s Mot. for Rec onsideration [73] .) Dick Corpor ation argues that the intere sts of justice war rant a llowing it to addre ss the Capform subcontr actor

work at the damag es trial bec ause it wa s previously unawa re of the importance that would be attac hed to the Capfor m subcontrac tor pay

rolls. ( Id. at1 0
- 1 1
. ) In particula r, Dick Corpor ation contends that it was not until Plainti ffs’ O pposition t o Dick Corporation’s Motion to Alter or Ame nd J udg ment that it learne d for the f irst time that Pl aintiffs
wer e alleg ing that Dick Corporation failed to maintain ade quate r ecor ds with respec t to Capform and that this should trigg er the Laborers’ Pension Fund burden- shifting f

rame work. (

Id. at 14.) Be cause it was not permitted to file a Reply due to an e x pedited brie fingschedule , Dick Corporation argues that it should now be af forde d an opportunity

to respond to such a

n argument and provide the Capfor

m subcontrac tor pay

rolls to avoid summary

judgme nt on this portion of the Union trade jurisdiction damag es dispute. ( Id. at 15.) Pla int if fs re sp on d th at D ic k Co rp or atio n h a s f a ile d to pr ov ide any

ba sis fo r t

he Court to
re c on sid e r i ts d ama g e s ju dgme nt u nd e r R ule 54 (b ) a

nd that it sh ou ld n ot b e pe rm itt e d to
su pp le me nt t

he re c or d w ithpr e vio us ly ava ila ble e vid e nc e that w a s n ot p ro vid e d d e sp ite ampl e op po rt un iti e s to do so . ( Pls. ’ O pp ’n [77]. ) P la int if

fs a sse rt that D ic k Co rp or atio n f

a ile d to produce the pay

roll rec ords for Ca

pform eve n though it had those rec ords in its possession, was sp e c if ic a lly re qu e ste d to pr od

uc e the m du

ri ngdis c ov e ry , a

nd ha d nume ro us op po rt

un iti e s to produce them throughout the course of the litigation. ( Id. at 1-8.)8

II. Le ga l St anda r ds Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 54(b) “g overns r econside ration of or order s that do not constitute final judg ments in a ca se.” Cobell v. Norton , 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 539 (D.D .C. 2005). Rule 54(b) provide s that “any order or other de cision, howeve r designated, that a djudicates fe wer than all the cla ims or the rights and liabiliti es of f ewe r than a ll the parties . . . may be re vised at any time before the entry

of judg ment adjudicatingall the claims and a ll the parties’ rights a nd liabiliti es.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 54(b). “ Reconsider ations of interlocutory order s ‘ar e within the discretion of the trial court’ and ar e ‘the ref ore subjec t to the complete powe r of the c ourt rende ringthem to affor d such re lief fr om them as justice re quires.’” Keystone Tobacc o Co., Inc. v. U.S. Tobacc o Co. , 217 F.R.D. 235, 237 (D .D.C. 2003). In deter mining whe ther
rec onsideration is war

rante d, courts ofte n consider whether the cour t has patently

misunderstood the par ties or made a

n err or of a

pprehe nsion, whether the parties have prof fer ed supplementa l evidenc e or ne w theorie s not previously befor e the c ourt, or whe ther the de cision was outside the issues prese nted to the cour t by the par ties. Se eSc ott

v . D ist ric t of Colum bia , 246 F.R.D. 49, 51 (D .D .C. 20 07 ); Cob e ll , 355 F. Supp. 2d at 539 (r eviewingcase s). Ultimately , howeve r, “a sking what justice re quires amounts to deter mining, within the Court’s discre tion, whether
rec onsideration is nec essar y under the rele vant circ umstances.” Cob e ll , 355 F. Supp. 2d at 539.

III. Discussion After revie wingthe pleading s, the rec ord and theproce dural history of the c ase, a s well as the exhibit s proffe red by

Def endant Dic k Corporation, the Court conc ludes that justice re quires that the damag es trial to be he ld includes the issues re lated to Capfor m. The Court is now9

confr onted with what, in light of the Capfor

m subcontrac tor pay

rolls proffe red by

Dick Corporation in Exhi bit 1 to it s Motion for Reconsider ation, is a clea r and g enuine issue of materia l fac t that is appropriate for tria l rather than re solution on sum mary judgme nt. As noted by Di c k Co rp or atio n, the pr e se nc e of the Ca pf or m su bc ontr a c tor

pa y ro lls ha s c re ate d a

ne arl y indisti nguishable fa ctual re cord f rom the re cord r eg arding

the other two subc ontrac tors, J ohnston
and Ar tCr e te , o n whic h th e Court or de re d a dama g e s tria l. It w ou ld u lti mate ly be arb itr ary

to proce ed with a da

mag es trial on the issues re lated to those two subcontra ctors and not f or the issues relate d to Capform now that ther e is clea r evide nce of

disputed material f

act on the Ca pf or m w or k b e fo re the Court . The Court is of cour se mindful and troubled that the Capform pa y roll rec ords wer e not produce d by

Dick Corporation at any

prior point duringthe cour se of this litigation. The
rec itation in P laintiff’s Opposition of the number of instance s when Dic k Corporation could a nd should have produc ed the disputed pa y roll rec ords demonstrate s full well that Dick Corporation did not dili g ently

meet its discovery

obligations with respect to the Capf orm pay rolls. ( See Pl.’s Opp’n [77] at 3-8.) D ick Corporation asserts that it “was initially unable to locate this one set of pay rolls and provided Plaintiff with what it understood to be their total hours in rec ognition of the abse nce of

the ac tual pay

rolls.” (De f.’s Reply

[79] at 4.) It further

contends that “ the p ay ro l l s we re n o tp ro d

u ce d s o o n er th er ea ft er

b ec au s e o f th e p re s s o f th e c l o s e o f d i s co v ery , l o n grunningsettlement discussions and long -runningbriefingon the par ties’ cross motions for summary judgme nt, post-summary judgme nt motions , an appe al and r emand, Plaintiffs ra ising no initial objection to rece iving the total Capf orm subcontra ctor wor

k hours in lieu of the then
un ava ila ble pa y ro lls , a nd Di c k Co rp or atio n’ s la c k o f n oti c e of the ne e d to pr ov ide the se pa y ro lls10

to avoid a higher e videntiary burden f or establishinga dispute of mate rial fa ct re g arding damag es.” (

Id. ) It is appare nt theref

ore that Dick Corporation relied on Plaintiff’s ac cepta nce of the total Capform subcontr actor work hours in lieu of the pay rolls without vociferous a nd
repe ate d o bje c tio n a

nd a ssume d th at it

c ou ld r e ly

on the F ish e r a

nd Ga rd ne r d e c laratio ns to withstand summary

judgme nt on damag es. The pa y roll rec ords, howeve r, should have be en produce d whene ver the y

beca me ava ilable re g ardle ss of whethe r Plaintiff specif icallyrere qu e ste d th os e re c or ds
. De sp ite thi s f

a ilure to t ime ly

pr od uc e the pa

y ro ll r e c or ds , th e Court ’s re vie w o f t he wh ole
rec ord and the circ umstances a nd proce dural history

of the c ase le ads it to conclude that damag es should be deter

mined at an e videntiary

hearing ba sed on a c omplete re cord that includes the long- missing pay

roll rec ords. With t he inclusion of the Capf orm pay roll rec ords, the Lab ore rs’ Pension Fund

burden- shifting f

rame work no long er a

pplies, and the F isher and G ardne r Dec larations become suff icient to cre ate a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t reg ardingMr. Vivitrio’s calc ulation of damag es. ( SeeMem. Op. [71] at 9.) Give n the longand cir cuitous proce dural history of the c ase, the Court is left with the view that justice re quires that the r emaining d am age s i s s u es re l at edt o al l thre e s u b co ntra ct o rs b e d et erm i n edaf t er a f u l l ev i d en t i ary

h eari n g.

IV. Conclusion This Court will t here fore amend its J uly 21st, 2008 order grantingin-part a nd denying- inpart Dic k Corporation’s Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment. Dick Corpor ation shall pay dama g e s to Pla int if

fs in t he amou nt o f $ 22 5, 39 8. 73 plu s inte re st, tot a l inte re st, and c os ts, repr esentingthe delinquent contr ibutions attributable to all subcontractor s other than Ar tCrete,T h e Cour t de r i v es t h i s f i g u r e f r om At t ac h men t A t o Pl ai n t i f f Fu n ds ’ Su r r epl y i n Su ppor t of i t s Pos i t i on on 5 R em and [63 ], whi ch P l ai nt i f f s subm i t t ed t o pro vi d e t he C o urt wi t h an al t ernat i ve cal cul at i o n of d am ages s ho ul d t he C o urt have d eci d ed t o grant pa rt i al s um m ary judgm ent i n f avo r of P l ai nt i f f s. ( P l
. ’ s Surrep l y 12 n. 2 2 , 15
. ) A t t ach ment A i s bas ed on t he f i gu r es provi ded b y M r . V i vi r i t o i n h i s au di t r eport an d exc l udes al l wor k per f ormed b y A rtC re te , Jo h n sto n , an d C a p fo rm . ( Id
. ) D i ck Cor por at i on h as n ot di s pu t ed t h e al t er n at i v e dama g es c al cu l at i on s e t f or t h i n At t a c h me n t A. 11 J ohnston, and Capform. As to damag es for work pe rfor

med by ArtCrete , J ohnston, and 5 Capform, the Court amends its earlier order and finds that Dick Corpor ation has demonstrated a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. The par

ties shall appea

r bef ore this Court for a

trial to determine the amou nt o f d ama g e s th at D ic k Co rp or atio n mu st p ay to P la int if

fs fo r w or k p e rf or me d b y the se three subcontrac tors. An Or de r c on sis te nt w iththi s Me mor and um O pin ion

is f ile d c onte mpo ra

ne ou sly here with.

Date : June 1s t , 2 00 9 /s/ A LA NK A Y UNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE