Preview
Filed: 2/14/2023 2:30 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 72753400
By: Shailja Dixit
2/14/2023 2:38 PM
CAUSE NO. 22 CV 0729
RICHARD VILLNAVE AND DARIUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
STEWART §
Plaintiffs, §
§ GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
VS. §
§
ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC § 10th DISTRICT COURT
§
Defendant. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED PLEADING
Plaintiff Richard Villnave, asks the Court for leave to file the attached Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Petition to a join a related party to the Defendant and assert negligence per se.
I. SUMMARY
Plaintiff sued Defendant Encore Dredging Partners, LLC, for negligence and gross
negligence arising out injuries sustained from an improperly lit dredge. Plaintiffs now seek to
properly join an affiliated defendant -- Defendant Inland Dredging Company, LLC. This entity is
a proper party despite Encore Dredging Partners, LLC's representation that the business was no
longer operating, and that Encore Dredging Partners, LLC was the proper party. For the following
reasons, Plaintiffs seek to amend their petition an add negligence per se claims and join Inland
Dredging Company LLC:
1. No surprise.
2. No prejudice.
3. No removal from any expedited process.
1
II. BACKGROUND
On or about January 14, 2022, Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart were travelling in West
Galveston Bay aboard Plaintiff Villnave’s 21-foot custom duck boat, going a reasonable speed
with LED lights in the water. Mr. Villnave thought he was traveling safely in open waters, the only
thing visible were boat lights and he could see some 300 yards aways. Without warning, the vessel
collided with a solid structure in the water, coming to a jolting halt. This structure, which was later
identified as dredging pipes of the M/V Ranger that is owned by Encore and operated by Inland
Dredging Company, LLC, were not visible at the time of the allision as it was nighttime, the pipes
themselves were a dark color, there were no visible markers, and there was no lighting to warn
those traveling in the West Galveston Bay. The sudden allision with the Encore Defendant’s M/V
Ranger’s pipes as it was dredging caused Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart to be thrown around
violently aboard the vessel. Plaintiffs suffer from a number of resulting injuries to their neck and
back. The incident was reported to the United States Coast Guard, game warden, and to the office
of safety of the M/V Ranger where Mr. Villnave observed uninstalled lights.
By reason of the occurrences made the basis of this action, including the conduct on the part
of the Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe bodily injuries. Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain
and mental anguish and, in reasonable medical probability, will continue to do so for the balance of
their natural lives.
Plaintiffs now seek leave to file their Second Amended Petition, attached to this motion
as Exhibit A, to join a necessary party. Defendant Encore disclosure that Encore Dredging
Partners, LLC is the correct name defendant and there were no additional parties. This was false. See
Exhibit B. Inland Dredging Company, LLC is the contracting party and operator of the dredge on
January 14, 2022. See Exhibit C.
2
The purpose of Plaintiffs’ amendment is to join a new party and assert negligence per
se.
This case is set for trial on March 27, 2023. The Parties filed a joint and agreed Motion
for Continuance on January 5, 2023, as the parties agreed to work together to mediate the case.
The mediation was unsuccessful.
III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
A court should grant leave to amend a pleading after the filing deadline unless (1) the
opposing party presents evidence of surprise, (2) the opposing party establishes the amendment is
prejudicial on its face, or (3) the amendment removes the suit from the expedited-actions process
in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 and the party presenting the amendment does not show that
good cause for filing the amendment outweighs any prejudice to the opposing party. See Tex. R.
Civ. P. 63, 169(c)(2); see also Greenhalgh v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co., 787 S.W.2d 938, 939 (Tex.
1990) (burden to show surprise or prejudice is on party opposing amendment).
A. Defendants cannot show surprise.
No court has defined “surprise” for purposes of Rule 63, but courts have considered certain
factors when determining whether a party opposing an amendment was surprised. To establish
surprise, the opposing party should address these factors, which include (1) how long the suit has
been pending before the amendment was filed, (2) how soon before trial the amendment was made,
and (3) whether the amendment presents a new claim. Dunnagan v. Watson, 204 S.W.3d 30, 38
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see Stevenson v. Koutzarov, 795 S.W.2d 313, 321
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied). If the amendment presents a new claim, the
opposing party should also address whether the claim is based on recently discovered matters and
indicate whether the opposing party is prepared to try the new claim. See Dunnagan, 204 S.W.3d
at 38; Stevenson, 795 S.W.2d at 321.
3
The Court should grant leave to file the amended pleading because Defendant cannot claim
to be surprised by the amendment. Plaintiffs are filing this amended pleading as soon as possible.
Defendant Encore represented that there were no additional parties, and that Encore was the proper
party. Discovery has revealed this was inaccurate and Inland Dredging is a proper and necessary
party.
B. Defendants cannot show prejudice.
To establish prejudice on the face of an amendment, the opposing party should show that
the amendment (1) asserts a new substantive matter that reshapes the nature of the suit, (2) could
not have been anticipated by the opposing party, and (3) will detrimentally affect the opposing
party’s ability to present its case. Hardin v. Hardin, 597 S.W.2d 347, 349-50 (Tex. 1980); Halmos
v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., 314 S.W.3d 606, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).
The Court should grant leave to file the amended pleading because Defendants cannot
claim to be prejudiced by the amendment. Firstly, this amendment does not assert a new
substantive matter that reshapes the nature of the suit. Plaintiffs are merely adding a new related
party and negligence per se. Secondly, the opposing parties could easily anticipate the joinder of
these new parties because the parties are related. Thirdly and lastly, the joinder of these anticipated
parties will not detrimentally affect the opposing party’s ability to present its case.
C. Suit is not an expedited action.
The Court should grant leave to file the amended pleading because this suit is not an
expedited action under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169. This lawsuit is governed by a Level 3
discovery control plan pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs file this Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading to join a new party to the
suit. Plaintiffs file this Motion not for delay but so that justice may be done. The opposing parties
4
will not be prejudiced or surprised by this amended pleading as both parties have moved for a
continuance and discovery is in the early stages.
PRAYER
For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant leave to file the amended pleading.
Respectfully submitted,
THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM
By: /s/ Caroline Adams
Anthony G. Buzbee
Tex. Bar No. 24001820
tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
Caroline E. Adams
State Bar No. 2401198
cadams@txattorneys.com
600 Travis, Suite 7500
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 223-5393
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that Encore repeatedly stated they needed additional time to respond
regarding opposition to this motion. Plaintiff takes the repeated failure to respond via telephone or
email as opposition.
/s/ Caroline Adams
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document has been served, in
compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on February 14, 2023.
/s/ Caroline Adams
Caroline Adams
5
CAUSE NO. 22 CV 0729
RICHARD VILLNAVE AND DARIUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
STEWART §
Plaintiffs, §
§ GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
VS. §
§
ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC § 10th DISTRICT COURT
§
Defendant. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND JURY DEMAND
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiffs Richard Villnave and Darius Stewart file this Second Amended Petition against
Defendant Encore Dredging Partners, LLC (“Encore”) and Inland Dredging Company LLC
(“Inland”) or (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and in support of their causes of action,
respectfully show this Honorable Court the following:
DISCOVERY
Discovery in this matter will be conducted pursuant to Level 3.
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff Richard Villnave is a resident of Galveston County, Texas at the time this cause of
action arose.
Plaintiff Darius Stewart is a resident of Galveston County, Texas at the time this cause of
action arose.
Defendant Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with a
principal place of business at 3027 Marina Bay Drive, Suite 240, League City, Texas. Defendant
may be served through its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900,
Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.
EXHIBIT
A
Defendant Inland Dredging Company, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with a
and may be served through its registered agent: Corporation Service Company dba CSC – Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620 Austin, TX 78701-3218 USA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action because it involves an
amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. This case is not removable
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(b).
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant Encore is
headquartered in Texas, does business in Texas and the causes of action herein arose from
Defendant’s activities in this state.
Venue is proper in this matter pursuant to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code §
15.002. Venue is proper in Galveston County, Texas under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§15.002(a)(1) and (2) because the Defendant’s primary place of business is in Galveston County,
Texas and the acts complained of herein occurred in Galveston County, Texas.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about January 14, 2022, Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart were travelling in West
Galveston Bay aboard Plaintiff Villnave’s 21-foot custom duck boat, going a reasonable speed
with LED lights in the water. Mr. Villnave thought he was traveling safely in open waters, the only
thing visible were boat lights and he could see some 300 yards aways. Without warning, his vessel
collided with a solid structure in the water, coming to a jolting halt. This structure, which was later
identified as dredging pipes of the M/V Ranger that is owned by Encore and operated by Inland
Dredging Company, LLC, were not visible at the time of the allision as it was nighttime, the pipes
themselves were a dark color, there were no visible markers, and there was no lighting to warn
those traveling in the West Galveston Bay. The sudden allision with the Encore Defendant’s M/V
Page 2
Ranger’s pipes as it was dredging caused Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart to be thrown around
violently aboard the vessel. Plaintiffs suffer from a number of resulting injuries to their neck and
back. The incident was reported to the United States Coast Guard, game warden, and to the office
of safety of the M/V Ranger where Mr. Villnave observed uninstalled lights.
By reason of the occurrences made the basis of this action, including the conduct on the part
of the Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe bodily injuries. Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain
and mental anguish and, in reasonable medical probability, will continue to do so for the balance of
their natural lives.
As a result of the foregoing injuries, Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of wages in the past and
a loss of or reduction in the capacity to work and earn money in the future and, in reasonable
probability, their earning capacities have been impaired permanently.
Moreover, Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable and necessary medical expenses in the past
and, in reasonable probability will incur reasonable medical expenses in the future.
Additionally, as a result of the injuries sustained in this occurrence, Plaintiffs suffered in
the past and will, in reasonable medical probability, continue to suffer permanent physical
impairment.
Pleading further, in the alternative, if it is shown that Plaintiffs were suffering from some
pre-existing injury, disease, and/or condition, then such was aggravated and/or exacerbated as a
proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs are physically impaired as a result of injuries sustained. As a consequence, they
have lost the ability to perform household services and, in reasonable probability, this loss is
permanent
NEGLIGENCE BY ALL DEFENDANTS
Defendants were negligent in not properly marking and/or illuminating the dredge pipes
Page 3
which created a hazard. Defendants 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. Defendants had a duty to those traveling in the West
Galveston Bay and breached that duty through the hazard they created.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
Defendants’ conduct, individually or collectively, was negligence per se because of a
breach of duty imposed by statute. This breach caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. Specifically, there was
a breach of duties imposed by statutes and state law, including, but not limited to, one or more of
the following:
• This regulation requires the owner of an obstruction to “mark it immediately with a
buoy or beacon during the day or a light at night.” 33 C.F.R. § 64.11(a).
• “A vessel engaged in dredging or underwater operations, when restricted in her ability
to maneuver, shall exhibit the lights and shapes prescribed in paragraphs (b)(i), (ii),
and (iii) of this Rule.” 33 C.F.R. § 83.27(d).
• Notice to Mariners. 33 C.F.R. 72.01.
• Obstructions existing on or in the navigable waters . . . .”See 33 C.F.R. § 64.03(a)(3);
See Higman Towing Co. v. Dredge Tom James, 637 F. Supp. 925, 929 (E.D. Tex.
1986).
Plaintiffs are within the class of individuals intended to be protected by the statute. These
statutes are ones for which tort liability may be imposed. Defendants’ breach of the statutory duties
proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries
Defendants’ negligence as alleged above was the proximate cause of the injuries caused by
the obstructed dredge pipe and causing injuries to the Plaintiffs.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set
Page 4
forth herein.
Defendant’s conduct was willful, reckless, wanton, and/or malicious. At a minimum,
Defendants’ acts and omissions, when viewed objectively, involved an extreme degree of risk,
considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm. And, due to their subjective
awareness of the extreme risk, Defendants exhibited a conscious indifference to the rights, safety
or welfare of others. Plaintiffs thus seek exemplary damages, along with all other damages allowed
by applicable law.
DAMAGES
By reason of the occurrences made the basis of this action, including the conduct on part of
the Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe bodily injuries. Plaintiffs have incurred medical bills for
past treatment, and will need treatment into the future as a result of the injuries. Due to the
occurrences, Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain and mental anguish, and in reasonable medical
probability, will continue to do so for the balance of their natural life.
Pleading further, in the alternative, if it is shown that Plaintiffs were suffering from some pre-
existing injury, disease, and/or condition, then such was aggravated and/or exacerbated as a proximate
result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit.
PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs hereby requests and demand that Defendants preserve and maintain all evidence
pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit or the
damages resulting therefrom, including statements, photographs, videotapes, audiotapes,
surveillance or security tapes, business or medical records, incident reports, bills, telephone call
slips or records, correspondence, facsimiles, e-mail, voicemail, text messages, any evidence
involving the incident in question, and any electronic image or information related to the
referenced incident or damages. Failure to maintain such items will constitute “spoliation” of the
Page 5
evidence.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor against Defendants, including: compensatory
damages to include those for past and future economic loss; past and future mental anguish; past
and future pain and suffering; past and future impairment and disfigurement; and past and future
medical expenses. Plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, as well as any further relief as this Court deems
just and proper.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs asks that Defendants be cited to appear and answer this suit.
Plaintiff ask that this case be set for trial without delay, and that Plaintiff recover judgment from
Defendants for damages in such an amount that the evidence may show and the trier of fact may
determine to be proper.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays for judgment against
Defendants in the amount of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00), plus pre- and post-
judgment interest at the legal rate, for all costs of court, and all such other and further relief, at law
and in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM
By: /s/ Anthony G. Buzbee
Anthony G. Buzbee
State Bar No. 24001820
tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
Caroline Adams
State Bar No. 24011198
cadams@txattorneys.com
Page 6
Maria Elena Holmes
State Bar No. 24075364
mholmes@txattorneys.com
JP Morgan Chase Tower
600 Travis, Suite 6850
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 223-5393
Facsimile: (713) 223-5909
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document has been served, in
compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on February 14, 2023.
/s/ Caroline Adams
Caroline Adams
Page 7
Filed: 9/21/2022 4:07 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 68490435
By: Shailja Dixit
9/21/2022 4:13 PM
CAUSE NO. 22-CV-0729
RICHARD VILLNAVE AND DARIUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
STEWART §
Plaintiffs, § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
§
VS. §
§ 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC §
Defendant §
ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC’S RULE 194 INITIAL DISCLOSURES
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant, Encore Dredging
Partners, LLC (“Defendant” or “Encore”), who, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194
submits the following disclosures:
1. NAMES/PARTIES TO LAWSUIT
• Richard Villnave
Through his counsel of record:
Anthony G. Buzbee
Caroline E. Adams
600 Travis, Ste. 7300
Houston, TX 77002
Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393
tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
cadams@txattorneys.com
• Darius Stewart
Through his counsel of record:
Anthony G. Buzbee
Caroline E. Adams
600 Travis, Ste. 7300
Houston, TX 77002
Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393
tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
cadams@txattorneys.com
• Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is the correct name defendant.
2. NAME/ADDRESS OF POTENTIAL PARTIES
• Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is not aware of any other potential parties.
EXHIBIT
B
3. LEGAL THEORIES/FACTS/CLAIMS/DEFENSES
• Encore Dredging Partners, LLC contends that the dredge pipe that Mr. Villnave’s
vessel struck was lit in accordance with the applicable standards and regulations. Also,
it was visible and above water. As such, Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is not liable
for the injuries Mr. Villnave complains of.
4. AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC DAMAGES
• Both parties are currently in possession of Mr. Villnave’s written statement.
• No medical records currently in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s possession other
than what has been produced by plaintiff.
• No physical/mental damages currently in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s possession
other than what has been produced by plaintiff.
5. IDENTITY OF PERSONS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF RELEVANT FACTS
• Richard Villnave
Through his counsel of record:
Anthony G. Buzbee
Caroline E. Adams
600 Travis, Ste. 7300
Houston, TX 77002
Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393
tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
cadams@txattorneys.com
• Darius Stewart
Through his counsel of record:
Anthony G. Buzbee
Caroline E. Adams
600 Travis, Ste. 7300
Houston, TX 77002
Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393
tbuzbee@txattorneys.com
cadams@txattorneys.com
• Toby Marek
Dredge Superintendent
Encore Dredging Partners, LLC
3027 Marina Bay Dr., Ste. 240
League City, TX 77573
713-913-7210
• The crew of the Dredge RANGER for January 13 and 14, 2021
Encore Dredging Partners, LLC
3027 Marina Bay Dr., Ste. 240
League City, TX 77573
713-913-7210
• Any other person whose identity is learned through further discovery.
6. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
• Copy of the dredge permit for the Dredge RANGER, formally known as the Dredge
EAGLE ONE.
• Copy of the requests to the U.S. Coast Guard for a Notice of Mariners to be issued
regarding dredging operations taken place at the subject location.
• Photographs of the dredge pipe with the required markings and buoys.
• Photographs of warnings placed at the boat launch near the dredge site.
• The written statement provided to Encore Dredging Partners, LLC by Mr. Villnave.
• Correspondence between Encore Dredging Partners, LLC and Mr. Villnave regarding
settlement of his claims.
• Dredge logs for the Dredge RANGER for January 8-15, 2021.
• Any document that may be obtained through discovery or subpoena response.
• Any document listed or introduced by any other party.
• Any settlement agreements - none.
7. INDEMNITY/INSURING AGREEMENTS
• A copy of the applicable insurance agreement has been requested and will be
provided for review at a mutually agreeable time.
8. ANY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
• None.
9. WITNESS STATEMENTS
• Both parties are currently in possession of Mr. Villnave’s written statement.
10. MEDICAL RECORDS/BILLS REASONABLE RELATED TO SUBJECT OF
THIS LITIGATION
• No records concerning physical/mental damages are in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s
possession other than what has been produced by plaintiff.
11. MEDICAL RECORDS/BILLS OBTAINED VIA AUTHORIZATION RELATED
TO SUBJECT OF THIS LITIGATION
• No records concerning physical/mental damages are in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s
possession other than what has been produced by plaintiff.
12. DESIGNATED THIRD PARTY
• No known responsible third party at this time.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Respectfully submitted,
I hereby certify that a copy of STAINES, EPPLING & KENNEY
the above and foregoing pleading has
been served on all counsel of record via
the service method indicated below:
/s/ Corey P. Parenton
[ ] U.S. Mail COREY P. PARENTON (#24095858)
[ ] Facsimile 3500 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 820
[ ] Hand Delivery Metairie, Louisiana 70002
[x ] ECF Filing Telephone: (504) 838-0019
Facsimile: (504) 838-0043
This 16th day of September, 2022. Counsel for Encore Dredging Partners, LLC
/s/ Corey P. Parenton
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: 68490435
Status as of 9/21/2022 4:14 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Encore Dredging Partners, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Corey PParenton corey@seklaw.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT
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: 68490435
Status as of 9/21/2022 4:14 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Caroline Adams cadams@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT
Anthony G.Buzbee tbuzbee@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT
Jesse Rubio jrubio@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT
Daedra Minigan dminigan@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT
EXHIBIT
C ENC000111
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.
Jennifer Buzbee on behalf of Anthony Buzbee
Bar No. 24001820
efiling@txattorneys.com
Envelope ID: 72753400
Status as of 2/14/2023 2:38 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Encore Dredging Partners, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Corey PParenton corey@seklaw.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Caroline Adams cadams@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT
Anthony G.Buzbee tbuzbee@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT
Jesse Rubio jrubio@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT
Daedra Minigan dminigan@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT
Amanda Dees adees@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT
Preview
Filed: 2/14/2023 2:30 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 72753400 By: Shailja Dixit 2/14/2023 2:38 PM CAUSE NO. 22 CV 0729 RICHARD VILLNAVE AND DARIUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF STEWART § Plaintiffs, § § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS VS. § § ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC § 10th DISTRICT COURT § Defendant. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED PLEADING Plaintiff Richard Villnave, asks the Court for leave to file the attached Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition to a join a related party to the Defendant and assert negligence per se. I. SUMMARY Plaintiff sued Defendant Encore Dredging Partners, LLC, for negligence and gross negligence arising out injuries sustained from an improperly lit dredge. Plaintiffs now seek to properly join an affiliated defendant -- Defendant Inland Dredging Company, LLC. This entity is a proper party despite Encore Dredging Partners, LLC's representation that the business was no longer operating, and that Encore Dredging Partners, LLC was the proper party. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs seek to amend their petition an add negligence per se claims and join Inland Dredging Company LLC: 1. No surprise. 2. No prejudice. 3. No removal from any expedited process. 1 II. BACKGROUND On or about January 14, 2022, Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart were travelling in West Galveston Bay aboard Plaintiff Villnave’s 21-foot custom duck boat, going a reasonable speed with LED lights in the water. Mr. Villnave thought he was traveling safely in open waters, the only thing visible were boat lights and he could see some 300 yards aways. Without warning, the vessel collided with a solid structure in the water, coming to a jolting halt. This structure, which was later identified as dredging pipes of the M/V Ranger that is owned by Encore and operated by Inland Dredging Company, LLC, were not visible at the time of the allision as it was nighttime, the pipes themselves were a dark color, there were no visible markers, and there was no lighting to warn those traveling in the West Galveston Bay. The sudden allision with the Encore Defendant’s M/V Ranger’s pipes as it was dredging caused Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart to be thrown around violently aboard the vessel. Plaintiffs suffer from a number of resulting injuries to their neck and back. The incident was reported to the United States Coast Guard, game warden, and to the office of safety of the M/V Ranger where Mr. Villnave observed uninstalled lights. By reason of the occurrences made the basis of this action, including the conduct on the part of the Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe bodily injuries. Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain and mental anguish and, in reasonable medical probability, will continue to do so for the balance of their natural lives. Plaintiffs now seek leave to file their Second Amended Petition, attached to this motion as Exhibit A, to join a necessary party. Defendant Encore disclosure that Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is the correct name defendant and there were no additional parties. This was false. See Exhibit B. Inland Dredging Company, LLC is the contracting party and operator of the dredge on January 14, 2022. See Exhibit C. 2 The purpose of Plaintiffs’ amendment is to join a new party and assert negligence per se. This case is set for trial on March 27, 2023. The Parties filed a joint and agreed Motion for Continuance on January 5, 2023, as the parties agreed to work together to mediate the case. The mediation was unsuccessful. III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES A court should grant leave to amend a pleading after the filing deadline unless (1) the opposing party presents evidence of surprise, (2) the opposing party establishes the amendment is prejudicial on its face, or (3) the amendment removes the suit from the expedited-actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 and the party presenting the amendment does not show that good cause for filing the amendment outweighs any prejudice to the opposing party. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 63, 169(c)(2); see also Greenhalgh v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co., 787 S.W.2d 938, 939 (Tex. 1990) (burden to show surprise or prejudice is on party opposing amendment). A. Defendants cannot show surprise. No court has defined “surprise” for purposes of Rule 63, but courts have considered certain factors when determining whether a party opposing an amendment was surprised. To establish surprise, the opposing party should address these factors, which include (1) how long the suit has been pending before the amendment was filed, (2) how soon before trial the amendment was made, and (3) whether the amendment presents a new claim. Dunnagan v. Watson, 204 S.W.3d 30, 38 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see Stevenson v. Koutzarov, 795 S.W.2d 313, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied). If the amendment presents a new claim, the opposing party should also address whether the claim is based on recently discovered matters and indicate whether the opposing party is prepared to try the new claim. See Dunnagan, 204 S.W.3d at 38; Stevenson, 795 S.W.2d at 321. 3 The Court should grant leave to file the amended pleading because Defendant cannot claim to be surprised by the amendment. Plaintiffs are filing this amended pleading as soon as possible. Defendant Encore represented that there were no additional parties, and that Encore was the proper party. Discovery has revealed this was inaccurate and Inland Dredging is a proper and necessary party. B. Defendants cannot show prejudice. To establish prejudice on the face of an amendment, the opposing party should show that the amendment (1) asserts a new substantive matter that reshapes the nature of the suit, (2) could not have been anticipated by the opposing party, and (3) will detrimentally affect the opposing party’s ability to present its case. Hardin v. Hardin, 597 S.W.2d 347, 349-50 (Tex. 1980); Halmos v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., 314 S.W.3d 606, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). The Court should grant leave to file the amended pleading because Defendants cannot claim to be prejudiced by the amendment. Firstly, this amendment does not assert a new substantive matter that reshapes the nature of the suit. Plaintiffs are merely adding a new related party and negligence per se. Secondly, the opposing parties could easily anticipate the joinder of these new parties because the parties are related. Thirdly and lastly, the joinder of these anticipated parties will not detrimentally affect the opposing party’s ability to present its case. C. Suit is not an expedited action. The Court should grant leave to file the amended pleading because this suit is not an expedited action under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169. This lawsuit is governed by a Level 3 discovery control plan pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs file this Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading to join a new party to the suit. Plaintiffs file this Motion not for delay but so that justice may be done. The opposing parties 4 will not be prejudiced or surprised by this amended pleading as both parties have moved for a continuance and discovery is in the early stages. PRAYER For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant leave to file the amended pleading. Respectfully submitted, THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM By: /s/ Caroline Adams Anthony G. Buzbee Tex. Bar No. 24001820 tbuzbee@txattorneys.com Caroline E. Adams State Bar No. 2401198 cadams@txattorneys.com 600 Travis, Suite 7500 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-5393 Facsimile: (713) 223-5909 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that Encore repeatedly stated they needed additional time to respond regarding opposition to this motion. Plaintiff takes the repeated failure to respond via telephone or email as opposition. /s/ Caroline Adams CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document has been served, in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on February 14, 2023. /s/ Caroline Adams Caroline Adams 5 CAUSE NO. 22 CV 0729 RICHARD VILLNAVE AND DARIUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF STEWART § Plaintiffs, § § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS VS. § § ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC § 10th DISTRICT COURT § Defendant. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND JURY DEMAND TO THIS HONORABLE COURT: Plaintiffs Richard Villnave and Darius Stewart file this Second Amended Petition against Defendant Encore Dredging Partners, LLC (“Encore”) and Inland Dredging Company LLC (“Inland”) or (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and in support of their causes of action, respectfully show this Honorable Court the following: DISCOVERY Discovery in this matter will be conducted pursuant to Level 3. THE PARTIES Plaintiff Richard Villnave is a resident of Galveston County, Texas at the time this cause of action arose. Plaintiff Darius Stewart is a resident of Galveston County, Texas at the time this cause of action arose. Defendant Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with a principal place of business at 3027 Marina Bay Drive, Suite 240, League City, Texas. Defendant may be served through its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. EXHIBIT A Defendant Inland Dredging Company, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with a and may be served through its registered agent: Corporation Service Company dba CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620 Austin, TX 78701-3218 USA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action because it involves an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. This case is not removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(b). This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant Encore is headquartered in Texas, does business in Texas and the causes of action herein arose from Defendant’s activities in this state. Venue is proper in this matter pursuant to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 15.002. Venue is proper in Galveston County, Texas under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.002(a)(1) and (2) because the Defendant’s primary place of business is in Galveston County, Texas and the acts complained of herein occurred in Galveston County, Texas. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about January 14, 2022, Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart were travelling in West Galveston Bay aboard Plaintiff Villnave’s 21-foot custom duck boat, going a reasonable speed with LED lights in the water. Mr. Villnave thought he was traveling safely in open waters, the only thing visible were boat lights and he could see some 300 yards aways. Without warning, his vessel collided with a solid structure in the water, coming to a jolting halt. This structure, which was later identified as dredging pipes of the M/V Ranger that is owned by Encore and operated by Inland Dredging Company, LLC, were not visible at the time of the allision as it was nighttime, the pipes themselves were a dark color, there were no visible markers, and there was no lighting to warn those traveling in the West Galveston Bay. The sudden allision with the Encore Defendant’s M/V Page 2 Ranger’s pipes as it was dredging caused Mr. Villnave and Mr. Stewart to be thrown around violently aboard the vessel. Plaintiffs suffer from a number of resulting injuries to their neck and back. The incident was reported to the United States Coast Guard, game warden, and to the office of safety of the M/V Ranger where Mr. Villnave observed uninstalled lights. By reason of the occurrences made the basis of this action, including the conduct on the part of the Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe bodily injuries. Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain and mental anguish and, in reasonable medical probability, will continue to do so for the balance of their natural lives. As a result of the foregoing injuries, Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of wages in the past and a loss of or reduction in the capacity to work and earn money in the future and, in reasonable probability, their earning capacities have been impaired permanently. Moreover, Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable and necessary medical expenses in the past and, in reasonable probability will incur reasonable medical expenses in the future. Additionally, as a result of the injuries sustained in this occurrence, Plaintiffs suffered in the past and will, in reasonable medical probability, continue to suffer permanent physical impairment. Pleading further, in the alternative, if it is shown that Plaintiffs were suffering from some pre-existing injury, disease, and/or condition, then such was aggravated and/or exacerbated as a proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs are physically impaired as a result of injuries sustained. As a consequence, they have lost the ability to perform household services and, in reasonable probability, this loss is permanent NEGLIGENCE BY ALL DEFENDANTS Defendants were negligent in not properly marking and/or illuminating the dredge pipes Page 3 which created a hazard. Defendants 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. Defendants had a duty to those traveling in the West Galveston Bay and breached that duty through the hazard they created. NEGLIGENCE PER SE Defendants’ conduct, individually or collectively, was negligence per se because of a breach of duty imposed by statute. This breach caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. Specifically, there was a breach of duties imposed by statutes and state law, including, but not limited to, one or more of the following: • This regulation requires the owner of an obstruction to “mark it immediately with a buoy or beacon during the day or a light at night.” 33 C.F.R. § 64.11(a). • “A vessel engaged in dredging or underwater operations, when restricted in her ability to maneuver, shall exhibit the lights and shapes prescribed in paragraphs (b)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this Rule.” 33 C.F.R. § 83.27(d). • Notice to Mariners. 33 C.F.R. 72.01. • Obstructions existing on or in the navigable waters . . . .”See 33 C.F.R. § 64.03(a)(3); See Higman Towing Co. v. Dredge Tom James, 637 F. Supp. 925, 929 (E.D. Tex. 1986). Plaintiffs are within the class of individuals intended to be protected by the statute. These statutes are ones for which tort liability may be imposed. Defendants’ breach of the statutory duties proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries Defendants’ negligence as alleged above was the proximate cause of the injuries caused by the obstructed dredge pipe and causing injuries to the Plaintiffs. GROSS NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set Page 4 forth herein. Defendant’s conduct was willful, reckless, wanton, and/or malicious. At a minimum, Defendants’ acts and omissions, when viewed objectively, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm. And, due to their subjective awareness of the extreme risk, Defendants exhibited a conscious indifference to the rights, safety or welfare of others. Plaintiffs thus seek exemplary damages, along with all other damages allowed by applicable law. DAMAGES By reason of the occurrences made the basis of this action, including the conduct on part of the Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained severe bodily injuries. Plaintiffs have incurred medical bills for past treatment, and will need treatment into the future as a result of the injuries. Due to the occurrences, Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain and mental anguish, and in reasonable medical probability, will continue to do so for the balance of their natural life. Pleading further, in the alternative, if it is shown that Plaintiffs were suffering from some pre- existing injury, disease, and/or condition, then such was aggravated and/or exacerbated as a proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE Plaintiffs hereby requests and demand that Defendants preserve and maintain all evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit or the damages resulting therefrom, including statements, photographs, videotapes, audiotapes, surveillance or security tapes, business or medical records, incident reports, bills, telephone call slips or records, correspondence, facsimiles, e-mail, voicemail, text messages, any evidence involving the incident in question, and any electronic image or information related to the referenced incident or damages. Failure to maintain such items will constitute “spoliation” of the Page 5 evidence. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs request a trial by jury. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor against Defendants, including: compensatory damages to include those for past and future economic loss; past and future mental anguish; past and future pain and suffering; past and future impairment and disfigurement; and past and future medical expenses. Plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, as well as any further relief as this Court deems just and proper. For these reasons, Plaintiffs asks that Defendants be cited to appear and answer this suit. Plaintiff ask that this case be set for trial without delay, and that Plaintiff recover judgment from Defendants for damages in such an amount that the evidence may show and the trier of fact may determine to be proper. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in the amount of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00), plus pre- and post- judgment interest at the legal rate, for all costs of court, and all such other and further relief, at law and in equity, to which they may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM By: /s/ Anthony G. Buzbee Anthony G. Buzbee State Bar No. 24001820 tbuzbee@txattorneys.com Caroline Adams State Bar No. 24011198 cadams@txattorneys.com Page 6 Maria Elena Holmes State Bar No. 24075364 mholmes@txattorneys.com JP Morgan Chase Tower 600 Travis, Suite 6850 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-5393 Facsimile: (713) 223-5909 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document has been served, in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on February 14, 2023. /s/ Caroline Adams Caroline Adams Page 7 Filed: 9/21/2022 4:07 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 68490435 By: Shailja Dixit 9/21/2022 4:13 PM CAUSE NO. 22-CV-0729 RICHARD VILLNAVE AND DARIUS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF STEWART § Plaintiffs, § GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS § VS. § § 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC § Defendant § ENCORE DREDGING PARTNERS, LLC’S RULE 194 INITIAL DISCLOSURES NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant, Encore Dredging Partners, LLC (“Defendant” or “Encore”), who, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194 submits the following disclosures: 1. NAMES/PARTIES TO LAWSUIT • Richard Villnave Through his counsel of record: Anthony G. Buzbee Caroline E. Adams 600 Travis, Ste. 7300 Houston, TX 77002 Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393 tbuzbee@txattorneys.com cadams@txattorneys.com • Darius Stewart Through his counsel of record: Anthony G. Buzbee Caroline E. Adams 600 Travis, Ste. 7300 Houston, TX 77002 Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393 tbuzbee@txattorneys.com cadams@txattorneys.com • Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is the correct name defendant. 2. NAME/ADDRESS OF POTENTIAL PARTIES • Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is not aware of any other potential parties. EXHIBIT B 3. LEGAL THEORIES/FACTS/CLAIMS/DEFENSES • Encore Dredging Partners, LLC contends that the dredge pipe that Mr. Villnave’s vessel struck was lit in accordance with the applicable standards and regulations. Also, it was visible and above water. As such, Encore Dredging Partners, LLC is not liable for the injuries Mr. Villnave complains of. 4. AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC DAMAGES • Both parties are currently in possession of Mr. Villnave’s written statement. • No medical records currently in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s possession other than what has been produced by plaintiff. • No physical/mental damages currently in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s possession other than what has been produced by plaintiff. 5. IDENTITY OF PERSONS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF RELEVANT FACTS • Richard Villnave Through his counsel of record: Anthony G. Buzbee Caroline E. Adams 600 Travis, Ste. 7300 Houston, TX 77002 Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393 tbuzbee@txattorneys.com cadams@txattorneys.com • Darius Stewart Through his counsel of record: Anthony G. Buzbee Caroline E. Adams 600 Travis, Ste. 7300 Houston, TX 77002 Attorney Phone #: 713-223-5393 tbuzbee@txattorneys.com cadams@txattorneys.com • Toby Marek Dredge Superintendent Encore Dredging Partners, LLC 3027 Marina Bay Dr., Ste. 240 League City, TX 77573 713-913-7210 • The crew of the Dredge RANGER for January 13 and 14, 2021 Encore Dredging Partners, LLC 3027 Marina Bay Dr., Ste. 240 League City, TX 77573 713-913-7210 • Any other person whose identity is learned through further discovery. 6. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS • Copy of the dredge permit for the Dredge RANGER, formally known as the Dredge EAGLE ONE. • Copy of the requests to the U.S. Coast Guard for a Notice of Mariners to be issued regarding dredging operations taken place at the subject location. • Photographs of the dredge pipe with the required markings and buoys. • Photographs of warnings placed at the boat launch near the dredge site. • The written statement provided to Encore Dredging Partners, LLC by Mr. Villnave. • Correspondence between Encore Dredging Partners, LLC and Mr. Villnave regarding settlement of his claims. • Dredge logs for the Dredge RANGER for January 8-15, 2021. • Any document that may be obtained through discovery or subpoena response. • Any document listed or introduced by any other party. • Any settlement agreements - none. 7. INDEMNITY/INSURING AGREEMENTS • A copy of the applicable insurance agreement has been requested and will be provided for review at a mutually agreeable time. 8. ANY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS • None. 9. WITNESS STATEMENTS • Both parties are currently in possession of Mr. Villnave’s written statement. 10. MEDICAL RECORDS/BILLS REASONABLE RELATED TO SUBJECT OF THIS LITIGATION • No records concerning physical/mental damages are in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s possession other than what has been produced by plaintiff. 11. MEDICAL RECORDS/BILLS OBTAINED VIA AUTHORIZATION RELATED TO SUBJECT OF THIS LITIGATION • No records concerning physical/mental damages are in Encore Dredging Partners, LLC’s possession other than what has been produced by plaintiff. 12. DESIGNATED THIRD PARTY • No known responsible third party at this time. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Respectfully submitted, I hereby certify that a copy of STAINES, EPPLING & KENNEY the above and foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record via the service method indicated below: /s/ Corey P. Parenton [ ] U.S. Mail COREY P. PARENTON (#24095858) [ ] Facsimile 3500 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 820 [ ] Hand Delivery Metairie, Louisiana 70002 [x ] ECF Filing Telephone: (504) 838-0019 Facsimile: (504) 838-0043 This 16th day of September, 2022. Counsel for Encore Dredging Partners, LLC /s/ Corey P. Parenton 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: 68490435 Status as of 9/21/2022 4:14 PM CST Associated Case Party: Encore Dredging Partners, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Corey PParenton corey@seklaw.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT 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: 68490435 Status as of 9/21/2022 4:14 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Caroline Adams cadams@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT Anthony G.Buzbee tbuzbee@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT Jesse Rubio jrubio@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT Daedra Minigan dminigan@txattorneys.com 9/21/2022 4:07:43 PM SENT EXHIBIT C ENC000111 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. Jennifer Buzbee on behalf of Anthony Buzbee Bar No. 24001820 efiling@txattorneys.com Envelope ID: 72753400 Status as of 2/14/2023 2:38 PM CST Associated Case Party: Encore Dredging Partners, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Corey PParenton corey@seklaw.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Caroline Adams cadams@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT Anthony G.Buzbee tbuzbee@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT Jesse Rubio jrubio@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT Daedra Minigan dminigan@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT Amanda Dees adees@txattorneys.com 2/14/2023 2:30:52 PM SENT