Preview
Filed: 2/6/2023 3:04 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 72479384
By: Shailja Dixit
2/6/2023 3:18 PM
CAUSE NO. 22-CV-0729
Plaintiffs IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
RICHARD VILLNAVE
DARIUS STEWART GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
VS.
Defendant
ENCORE DREDGING 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PARTNERS, LLC
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
RULE 166(a)(i) “NO EVIDENCE” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
Encore Dredging Partners, LLC (“Encore”), respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
dismiss it from this litigation, with prejudice, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(a)(i).
There is no evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claim that Encore was negligent, or that any lack of due
care on the part of Encore caused Plaintiffs’ duck boat to strike a properly lit and marked dredge
discharge pipeline on January 14, 2022. As demonstrated more fully below, summary judgment is
appropriate, and all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Encore should be dismissed with prejudice
because Plaintiffs cannot establish the factual support necessary to prove the essential elements of
their negligence claims, particularly that Encore breached any duty owed to them.
1. Factual Background
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Jury Demand alleges that "[o]n or about on or about
January 14, 2022, [Plaintiffs] were traveling in West Galveston Bay aboard Plaintiff Villnave's 21-
foot custom duck boat, going about 30 mph."1 They traveled west in shallow waters and hugged
1
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 2
-1-
the coastline, to steer clear of what they would later learn was M/V RANGER, a dredging vessel
owned by Encore.2 As they sped along in near total darkness, suddenly and allegedly "without
warning," the Plaintiffs’ vessel supposedly collided with what Villnave later identified as a
stationary pipeline in the water.3 Indeed, even in the allision’s immediate aftermath—while their
boat was stalled—Villnave and Stewart “really didn't know what at that point what we hit:”4
After continuing on with their duck hunt and returning to their prior path several hours
later, Plaintiffs surmised that they struck a dredge discharge line connected to the dredge
RANGER, owned by Encore.5 They then approached the dredge RANGER to report their alleged
incident with Encore. Steve Derouen, a former SSHO ("Site Safety and Health Officer”) aboard
the dredge RANGER, met with Villnave and Stewart and even followed them to where they
claimed to strike the dredge pipeline. After meeting with the Plaintiffs, Derouen prepared an
"Accident Notification Report" noting that "Pipeline [was] in accordance with the Corps of
2
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 2; Exhibit 1, excerpts from the Deposition of Richard Villnave at
pp. 47:14-52:22.
3
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 2
4
Ex. 1, p. 69:6-15.
5
Ex. 1, pp. 47:14-52:22.
-2-
Engineers and Coastguard [sic], with lights, floating balls and signs."6 He also testified that on
other occasions, "when the Corps came out and inspected the dredge and the pipeline, they found
the lighting, the marking, the signage, all that to be in compliance with the regulations.”7 Most
notably during his testimony, and pertinent for the instant motion, Derouen expressly confirmed
that "at approximately 5:15 in the morning January 14th, 2022 [the time of the allision], the
pipeline complied with Corps of Engineers standards as to lighting and marking."8
Also following the incident, Derouen provided the Plaintiffs with a form for them to submit
a report of the incident to Encore. Submitted in typed form three days later, Villnave expressed
that his duck boat experienced damage, but “[w]e were lucky no one was injured.”9 After that
report, he continued to discuss damages to his boat with Encore for several months, though never
mentioning that he or Stewart had experienced any personal injury.10
Now, Plaintiffs assert that “Encore was negligent in not properly marking and/or
illuminating the dredge pipes which created a hazard” and that “Encore failed to ensure the
condition of its dredge pipes were safe for those traveling in the West Galveston Bay through
measures including, but not limited to proper marking and illumination of the pipes.”11 But there
is no evidence to support any of these allegations. In fact, there is no evidence that they even hit
the dredge discharge line of the dredge RANGER. Thus, all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Encore
should be dismissed with prejudice.
6
Exhibit 2, Excerpts from the Deposition of Steve Derouen at 70:5-20; Exhibit 3 - "Accident Notification Feeder
Report"
7
Id. at 75:15-18
8
Id. at 80:25–81:6
9
Ex. 1, p. 68:3-10; Exhibit 4, Witness Questionnaire dated January 17, 2022.
10
Id., at p. 99:13-19.
11
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 3
-3-
2. Absent evidence to support the Plaintiffs' claim, Encore is entitled to Summary
Judgment.
The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allow for this Court to enter judgment in favor of
Encore because the Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to support a material element of their
claim. Pursuant to Rule 166(a), which governs motions for summary judgment,
After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment
evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence
of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party
would have the burden of proof at trial. The motion must state the elements as to
which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent
produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.12
Thus, if there is no evidence for a particular element of the plaintiffs’ claim, the deciding court
must grant the defendant’s motion.
In responding to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the non-
movants to present more than a scintilla of evidence. As stated by the Texas Supreme Court:
We have repeatedly held that more than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence
“rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in
their conclusions.” On the other hand, “[w]hen the evidence offered to prove a vital
fact is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of its
existence, the evidence is no more than a scintilla and, in legal effect, is no
evidence.”13
In the instant case, Plaintiffs have presented nothing more than their self-serving and
speculative allegations to support their claims of negligence against Encore. In contrast, the actual
evidence establishes that the pipeline was properly lit and marked in accordance with the
applicable Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard regulations.
12
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(a)(i).
13
Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
-4-
3. The essential elements of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims are void of factual
support.
Whether on land or water, the elements of a negligence claim are the same. As the United
States Fifth Circuit recently explained, a plaintiff asserting a claim for negligence under the general
maritime law must prove the existence of “a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of
that duty, injury sustained by [the] plaintiff, and a causal connection between the defendant's
conduct and the plaintiff's injury.” Ortega Garcia v. United States, 986 F.3d 513, 526 (5th
Cir.2021); In re Complaint of ENSCO Offshore Co., 9 F.Supp.3d 713, 721 (S.D. Tex.2014). Here,
there is no proof that Encore breached any duty it may have owed to Plaintiffs. The lack of proof
for this element, arguably the most critical to Plaintiffs’ claims, results in the failure of their entire
cause of action.
First, the Plaintiffs cannot prove that they even struck Encore’s dredge discharge line. They
can only affirm that the duck boat struck something, that they searched the water for what they
struck, and only later speculated that they struck the discharge line because it was in the area where
they might have encountered a submerged object. In all the photos Plaintiffs allegedly took after
they completed their duck hunt and returned to the site of the incident, none show any dents or
damage to the dredge discharge pipeline. Also, Plaintiffs traveled an undisclosed distance to their
hunting location, traveled all the way back to the alleged spot where the incident occurred, and
then notified the dredge RANGER before any photos were taken of their duck boat. There is only
self-serving speculative testimony that the Plaintiffs hit the dredge discharge pipeline, but there is
no witness who can identify what the Plaintiffs actually hit.
Next, Encore had a duty to mark its discharge pipeline to alert passing vessels of its
existence. See Rose Crewboat Servs., Inc. v. Wood Res., LLC, 425 F.Supp.3d 668, 675 (E.D.
La.2019). The Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers have expressed standards on how Encore
-5-
should properly mark its pipeline. For example, under 33 C.F.R. § 83.27, the discharge pipeline
must be marked with lights that “must be sufficient in number to clearly show the pipeline’s length
and course.” Similarly, Corps of Engineers EM-385 1-1, its Safety and Health Requirements
Manual,14 expresses in section 19.G.03 “Submerged and floating dredge pipeline,” subpart 2(c),
that a pipeline must be marked, at a minimum, every 1000ft “to clearly warn of the pipeline length
and course.” Section 2(f), which concerns pipelines outside of a navigation channel “will be
identified with high visibility buoys marked with 360-degree visibility retro-reflective tape, such
as orange neoprene buoys, placed at an interval not to exceed 500 ft (152.4 m) to clearly show the
pipeline length and course.”
These are the standards Encore complied with, according to Mr. Derouen. He
unequivocally stated that Encore’s dredge discharge line was appropriately lit and marked on
January 14, 2022 as required by both the Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers. Plaintiffs have
failed to explain why Encore’s compliance with these standards is tantamount to negligence, and
as such, all of their claims against Encore should be dismissed.
An example from the jurisprudence supports this conclusion. In Kevin Gros Marine, Inc.
v. Weeks Marine, Inc., the Eastern District of Louisiana found that when a defendant marked its
subline with buoys and white lights, it adhered to statutory requirements and did not violate any
duty owed to the plaintiff. Kevin Gros Marine, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., CIV.A. 07-1433, 2008
WL 4534382, at *8 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2008). Indeed, the court concluded that the defendant could
not be at fault to the plaintiff under these circumstances. Id.
Here, Derouen, the head of safety aboard the dredge Ranger and a former Encore employee,
explicitly testified that the discharge pipeline was lit and marked in accordance with Coast Guard
14
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Safety-and-Occupational-Health/Safety-and-Health-Requirements-Manual/
-6-
and Corps of Engineers standards. At best, Plaintiffs can allege that they did not see the lights or
markings – which is only proof of their own negligence. Yet, they have no evidence to refute
Derouen’s testimony that the pipeline was properly lit and marked.
4. Conclusion
There is no evidence that the Plaintiffs struck the dredge RANGER’s pipeline, only that
they struck an unidentified object somewhere near the area of the discharge pipeline. Even if the
Plaintiffs could prove that they struck the discharge pipeline of the dredge RANGER, there is no
evidence to support the allegation that Encore failed to properly mark or light its pipeline. In
diametric opposition to that allegation, Mr. Derouen testified that Encore complied with
requirements promulgated by the United States Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers. Absent
evidence to the contrary, Plaintiffs cannot prove that Encore breached any duty owed to them.
Without proof of this material element of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims, Encore Dredging Partners,
LLC’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, and Encore should be dismissed from
this matter, with prejudice.
-7-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Respectfully submitted,
I hereby certify that a copy of the STAINES, EPPLING & KENNEY
above and foregoing pleading has been
served on all counsel of record via the /s/ Corey P. Parenton
service method indicated below: ___________________________________
COREY P. PARENTON (#24095858)
[ ] U.S. Mail JASON R. KENNEY (PRO HAC VICE)
[ ] Facsimile MICHAEL W. MALDONADO
[ ] Hand Delivery 3500 North Causeway Boulevard
Suite 820
[x ] ECF Filing Metairie, Louisiana 70002
Telephone: (504) 838-0019
This 6th day of February, 2023 Facsimile: (504) 838-0043
Counsel Encore Dredging Partners, LLC
/s/ Corey P. Parenton
_______________________________
-8-
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Corey Parenton on behalf of Corey Parenton
Bar No. 24095858
corey@staines-eppling.com
Envelope ID: 72479384
Status as of 2/6/2023 3:19 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Encore Dredging Partners, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Corey PParenton corey@seklaw.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Caroline Adams cadams@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT
Anthony G.Buzbee tbuzbee@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT
Jesse Rubio jrubio@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT
Daedra Minigan dminigan@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT
Preview
Filed: 2/6/2023 3:04 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 72479384 By: Shailja Dixit 2/6/2023 3:18 PM CAUSE NO. 22-CV-0729 Plaintiffs IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF RICHARD VILLNAVE DARIUS STEWART GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS VS. Defendant ENCORE DREDGING 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PARTNERS, LLC MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RULE 166(a)(i) “NO EVIDENCE” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Encore Dredging Partners, LLC (“Encore”), respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss it from this litigation, with prejudice, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(a)(i). There is no evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claim that Encore was negligent, or that any lack of due care on the part of Encore caused Plaintiffs’ duck boat to strike a properly lit and marked dredge discharge pipeline on January 14, 2022. As demonstrated more fully below, summary judgment is appropriate, and all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Encore should be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiffs cannot establish the factual support necessary to prove the essential elements of their negligence claims, particularly that Encore breached any duty owed to them. 1. Factual Background Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Jury Demand alleges that "[o]n or about on or about January 14, 2022, [Plaintiffs] were traveling in West Galveston Bay aboard Plaintiff Villnave's 21- foot custom duck boat, going about 30 mph."1 They traveled west in shallow waters and hugged 1 Plaintiffs Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 2 -1- the coastline, to steer clear of what they would later learn was M/V RANGER, a dredging vessel owned by Encore.2 As they sped along in near total darkness, suddenly and allegedly "without warning," the Plaintiffs’ vessel supposedly collided with what Villnave later identified as a stationary pipeline in the water.3 Indeed, even in the allision’s immediate aftermath—while their boat was stalled—Villnave and Stewart “really didn't know what at that point what we hit:”4 After continuing on with their duck hunt and returning to their prior path several hours later, Plaintiffs surmised that they struck a dredge discharge line connected to the dredge RANGER, owned by Encore.5 They then approached the dredge RANGER to report their alleged incident with Encore. Steve Derouen, a former SSHO ("Site Safety and Health Officer”) aboard the dredge RANGER, met with Villnave and Stewart and even followed them to where they claimed to strike the dredge pipeline. After meeting with the Plaintiffs, Derouen prepared an "Accident Notification Report" noting that "Pipeline [was] in accordance with the Corps of 2 Plaintiffs Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 2; Exhibit 1, excerpts from the Deposition of Richard Villnave at pp. 47:14-52:22. 3 Plaintiffs Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 2 4 Ex. 1, p. 69:6-15. 5 Ex. 1, pp. 47:14-52:22. -2- Engineers and Coastguard [sic], with lights, floating balls and signs."6 He also testified that on other occasions, "when the Corps came out and inspected the dredge and the pipeline, they found the lighting, the marking, the signage, all that to be in compliance with the regulations.”7 Most notably during his testimony, and pertinent for the instant motion, Derouen expressly confirmed that "at approximately 5:15 in the morning January 14th, 2022 [the time of the allision], the pipeline complied with Corps of Engineers standards as to lighting and marking."8 Also following the incident, Derouen provided the Plaintiffs with a form for them to submit a report of the incident to Encore. Submitted in typed form three days later, Villnave expressed that his duck boat experienced damage, but “[w]e were lucky no one was injured.”9 After that report, he continued to discuss damages to his boat with Encore for several months, though never mentioning that he or Stewart had experienced any personal injury.10 Now, Plaintiffs assert that “Encore was negligent in not properly marking and/or illuminating the dredge pipes which created a hazard” and that “Encore failed to ensure the condition of its dredge pipes were safe for those traveling in the West Galveston Bay through measures including, but not limited to proper marking and illumination of the pipes.”11 But there is no evidence to support any of these allegations. In fact, there is no evidence that they even hit the dredge discharge line of the dredge RANGER. Thus, all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Encore should be dismissed with prejudice. 6 Exhibit 2, Excerpts from the Deposition of Steve Derouen at 70:5-20; Exhibit 3 - "Accident Notification Feeder Report" 7 Id. at 75:15-18 8 Id. at 80:25–81:6 9 Ex. 1, p. 68:3-10; Exhibit 4, Witness Questionnaire dated January 17, 2022. 10 Id., at p. 99:13-19. 11 Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and Jury Demand, p. 3 -3- 2. Absent evidence to support the Plaintiffs' claim, Encore is entitled to Summary Judgment. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allow for this Court to enter judgment in favor of Encore because the Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to support a material element of their claim. Pursuant to Rule 166(a), which governs motions for summary judgment, After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.12 Thus, if there is no evidence for a particular element of the plaintiffs’ claim, the deciding court must grant the defendant’s motion. In responding to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the non- movants to present more than a scintilla of evidence. As stated by the Texas Supreme Court: We have repeatedly held that more than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence “rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions.” On the other hand, “[w]hen the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of its existence, the evidence is no more than a scintilla and, in legal effect, is no evidence.”13 In the instant case, Plaintiffs have presented nothing more than their self-serving and speculative allegations to support their claims of negligence against Encore. In contrast, the actual evidence establishes that the pipeline was properly lit and marked in accordance with the applicable Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard regulations. 12 Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(a)(i). 13 Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004) (internal citations omitted). -4- 3. The essential elements of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims are void of factual support. Whether on land or water, the elements of a negligence claim are the same. As the United States Fifth Circuit recently explained, a plaintiff asserting a claim for negligence under the general maritime law must prove the existence of “a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, injury sustained by [the] plaintiff, and a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury.” Ortega Garcia v. United States, 986 F.3d 513, 526 (5th Cir.2021); In re Complaint of ENSCO Offshore Co., 9 F.Supp.3d 713, 721 (S.D. Tex.2014). Here, there is no proof that Encore breached any duty it may have owed to Plaintiffs. The lack of proof for this element, arguably the most critical to Plaintiffs’ claims, results in the failure of their entire cause of action. First, the Plaintiffs cannot prove that they even struck Encore’s dredge discharge line. They can only affirm that the duck boat struck something, that they searched the water for what they struck, and only later speculated that they struck the discharge line because it was in the area where they might have encountered a submerged object. In all the photos Plaintiffs allegedly took after they completed their duck hunt and returned to the site of the incident, none show any dents or damage to the dredge discharge pipeline. Also, Plaintiffs traveled an undisclosed distance to their hunting location, traveled all the way back to the alleged spot where the incident occurred, and then notified the dredge RANGER before any photos were taken of their duck boat. There is only self-serving speculative testimony that the Plaintiffs hit the dredge discharge pipeline, but there is no witness who can identify what the Plaintiffs actually hit. Next, Encore had a duty to mark its discharge pipeline to alert passing vessels of its existence. See Rose Crewboat Servs., Inc. v. Wood Res., LLC, 425 F.Supp.3d 668, 675 (E.D. La.2019). The Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers have expressed standards on how Encore -5- should properly mark its pipeline. For example, under 33 C.F.R. § 83.27, the discharge pipeline must be marked with lights that “must be sufficient in number to clearly show the pipeline’s length and course.” Similarly, Corps of Engineers EM-385 1-1, its Safety and Health Requirements Manual,14 expresses in section 19.G.03 “Submerged and floating dredge pipeline,” subpart 2(c), that a pipeline must be marked, at a minimum, every 1000ft “to clearly warn of the pipeline length and course.” Section 2(f), which concerns pipelines outside of a navigation channel “will be identified with high visibility buoys marked with 360-degree visibility retro-reflective tape, such as orange neoprene buoys, placed at an interval not to exceed 500 ft (152.4 m) to clearly show the pipeline length and course.” These are the standards Encore complied with, according to Mr. Derouen. He unequivocally stated that Encore’s dredge discharge line was appropriately lit and marked on January 14, 2022 as required by both the Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers. Plaintiffs have failed to explain why Encore’s compliance with these standards is tantamount to negligence, and as such, all of their claims against Encore should be dismissed. An example from the jurisprudence supports this conclusion. In Kevin Gros Marine, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., the Eastern District of Louisiana found that when a defendant marked its subline with buoys and white lights, it adhered to statutory requirements and did not violate any duty owed to the plaintiff. Kevin Gros Marine, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., CIV.A. 07-1433, 2008 WL 4534382, at *8 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2008). Indeed, the court concluded that the defendant could not be at fault to the plaintiff under these circumstances. Id. Here, Derouen, the head of safety aboard the dredge Ranger and a former Encore employee, explicitly testified that the discharge pipeline was lit and marked in accordance with Coast Guard 14 https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Safety-and-Occupational-Health/Safety-and-Health-Requirements-Manual/ -6- and Corps of Engineers standards. At best, Plaintiffs can allege that they did not see the lights or markings – which is only proof of their own negligence. Yet, they have no evidence to refute Derouen’s testimony that the pipeline was properly lit and marked. 4. Conclusion There is no evidence that the Plaintiffs struck the dredge RANGER’s pipeline, only that they struck an unidentified object somewhere near the area of the discharge pipeline. Even if the Plaintiffs could prove that they struck the discharge pipeline of the dredge RANGER, there is no evidence to support the allegation that Encore failed to properly mark or light its pipeline. In diametric opposition to that allegation, Mr. Derouen testified that Encore complied with requirements promulgated by the United States Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers. Absent evidence to the contrary, Plaintiffs cannot prove that Encore breached any duty owed to them. Without proof of this material element of Plaintiffs’ negligence claims, Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, and Encore should be dismissed from this matter, with prejudice. -7- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Respectfully submitted, I hereby certify that a copy of the STAINES, EPPLING & KENNEY above and foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record via the /s/ Corey P. Parenton service method indicated below: ___________________________________ COREY P. PARENTON (#24095858) [ ] U.S. Mail JASON R. KENNEY (PRO HAC VICE) [ ] Facsimile MICHAEL W. MALDONADO [ ] Hand Delivery 3500 North Causeway Boulevard Suite 820 [x ] ECF Filing Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Telephone: (504) 838-0019 This 6th day of February, 2023 Facsimile: (504) 838-0043 Counsel Encore Dredging Partners, LLC /s/ Corey P. Parenton _______________________________ -8- Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Corey Parenton on behalf of Corey Parenton Bar No. 24095858 corey@staines-eppling.com Envelope ID: 72479384 Status as of 2/6/2023 3:19 PM CST Associated Case Party: Encore Dredging Partners, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Corey PParenton corey@seklaw.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Caroline Adams cadams@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT Anthony G.Buzbee tbuzbee@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT Jesse Rubio jrubio@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT Daedra Minigan dminigan@txattorneys.com 2/6/2023 3:04:20 PM SENT