1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION 

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND 

CONTRACTORS OF SOUTHEAST 

TEXAS, INC, et al, 

Plaintiffs 

vs. 

JULIE SU, et al, 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 1:23-CV-00396 

JUDGE MICHAEL J. 

TRUNCALE 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

Plaintiffs hereby notify the Court of additional aspects of the newly issued case decision 

referenced in Defendants’ June 25, 2024 Notice of Decision (Doc. 28), that are relevant to the 

present case. See Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Am. et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 5:23-cv00272-C, slip op. at 38–39 (N.D. Tex. June 24, 2024) (“AGC”). In the AGC decision, the 

Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of 

DOL rule changes specifically challenged by Plaintiffs here.1 In doing so, Judge Cummings 

expressly held that the AGC plaintiffs had standing to sue, rejecting the same or similar 

arguments as those raised by Defendants in the present case (AGC, pp. 6-12, 17). The AGC 

1

 As acknowledged in Defendants’ Notice, Judge Cummings’ AGC ruling preliminarily enjoined 

enforcement of 29 C.F.R. 5.2 relating to truck drivers and material suppliers, and 29 C.F.R. 

5.5(e) relating to “operation of law.” Plaintiffs have challenged all of these provisions in the 

present case. 

Case 1:23-cv-00396-MJT Document 29 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 399
2 

decision also found Defendants were likely to succeed in proving violations of the Davis-Bacon 

Act, Administration Procedure Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act, again rejecting arguments 

Defendants have made in the present case. (AGC, pp. 23-33). 

Finally, Plaintiffs call to the Court’s attention Judge Cummings’ preceding order denying 

the Department’s motion to dismiss the AGC complaint. ( AGC, Doc. 43). The AGC court 

concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged standing so as to withstand Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court subsequently reaffirmed and expanded upon 

this holding in issuing the preliminary injunction. 

A copy of the AGC decision has been attached to Defendants’ Notice. (Doc 28). A copy 

of Judge Cummings’ order denying DOL’s motion to dismiss is attached hereto. 

Case 1:23-cv-00396-MJT Document 29 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 400
3 

Dated: June 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Maurice Baskin 

A. John Harper, III 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

1301 McKinney Street 

Suite 1900 

Houston, TX 

(713) 951-9400 

(713) 951-9212 

ajharper@littler.com 

Maurice Baskin (pro hac vice) 

Alex MacDonald (pro hac vice) 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

815 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(202) 772-2526 

mbaskin@littler.com 

amacdonald@littler.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

 

Case 1:23-cv-00396-MJT Document 29 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 401
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on June 26, 2024, the foregoing Notice of Supplemental Authority to 

Motion to Dismiss was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court, using the ECF system, 

thereby sending notification of such filing to counsel for Defendants: 

 Cynthia Liao 

 Arjun Mody 

 Trial Attorneys 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

 1100 L St., N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20005 

 Cynthia.F.Liao@usdoj.gov 

 Arjun.a.mody@usdoj.gov 

 /s/Maurice Baskin 

 

Case 1:23-cv-00396-MJT Document 29 Filed 06/26/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 402