In Re: Natures Way Marine, LLC

Filing 267

ORDER granting Natures Way Marine, LLC's 241 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Brunson's negligence claim. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/1/2013. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT )
OF NATURES WAY MARINE, LLC,
)
Owner of the Tank Barge NWM 431 or AO 431 )
(Hull No. D 557753) for Exoneration from or
)
Limitation of Liability
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00390-KD-N

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Natures Way Marine, LLC (“Natures Way)’s
[Partial] Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 241-243)1 on Charles Brunson (“Brunson”)’s
negligence claim against it.2
I.

Background3
A personal injury lawsuit, filed by temporary laborer Charles Brunson (“Brunson”),

regarding his alleged exposure to toxic chemicals while cleaning a barge on the Theodore

1 In Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811, 818-819 (2001), the Court
held that the LHWCA expressly pre-empts all other claims [against the employer and vessel owner], but it
expressly preserves all claims against third parties: “[T]he [LHWCA] provides nonseaman maritime
workers...with no-fault workers' compensation claims (against their employer, § 904(b)) and [vessel]
negligence claims (against the vessel, § 905(b)) for injury and death. As to those two defendants, the
LHWCA expressly pre-empts all other claims, §§ 905(a), (b), but it expressly preserves all claims against
third parties, §§ 933(a), (i).” Thus, it would appear that Brunson’s remaining state law claim
(wantonness) against Natures Way is also due to be dismissed. However, this issue has not been
addressed by either party.
2 While Natures Way technically has until October 4, 2013 within which to file a Reply to
Brunson’s Response (Doc. 263), the undersigned finds that no further briefing is necessary to resolve the
pending motion.
3 At the summary judgment stage, the facts are taken in the light most favorable to the
non-movant. Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH–Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998-999 (11th Cir. 1992). The “facts, as
accepted at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings, may not be the actual facts of the case.”
Priester v.. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 925 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2000).

1

Industrial Canal in Mobile County, Alabama, spawned a number of claims, cross-claims, and
counter-claims among five (5) parties.

This particular motion is rooted in Natures Way’s

contention that Brunson’s negligence claim against it (Doc. 50 at 5-6) lacks merit because
Natures Way did not breach any turnover duties owed to Brunson under the Longshore and
Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 905(b).
On August 19, 2010, Natures Way purchased a barge.4

(Doc. 242-1).

then hired U.S. Environmental Services, LLC (“USES”)5 to clean the barge.

Natures Way
(Doc. 242-2

(Dep. J.Spencer at 10-11); Doc. 242-3 (Dep. W.Blackmon at 22-24)).
On August 25, 2011, marine chemist Tom Littlepage (“Littlepage”) inspected the barge
by boarding, visually observing, and chemically testing the barge and its tanks for dangerous
conditions (i.e., conducted the chemical certification process of the barge).
T.Littlepage)).

(Doc. 242-5 (Aff.

In so doing, Littlepage observed small amounts of “bunker residue” in the

barge’s cargo tanks 1, 2, and 3, but determined that the residue did not render the barge or its
tanks unsafe for work: “[i]f the residue had been in such a state or quantity to be unsafe for
workers, that would have been noted on the Certificate.” (Id. at 2 (Aff. Littlepage at ¶8)).
Additionally, Littlepage tested the barge tanks for impermissible concentrations of oxygen,
flammable gas and toxic materials; he did not detect any hazardous conditions or toxic chemicals
on the barge or its tanks that would have rendered the atmosphere dangerous to workers.

(Id.)

Littlepage designated the atmosphere as “safe for workers” on the corresponding marine

4 Tank Barge NWM 431 or AO 431-Hull NO. D 557753.
5 USES is a company that provides environmental, industrial, and marine cleaning and safety
services to a broad range of customers, including maritime customers. (Doc. 191-1 (Aff. T.Bayham)).

2

certificate.6 (Doc. 242-4 (Certificate)).

Moreover, Littlepage concluded that the barge was

typical of a “No. 6 Oil Barge” and that its conditions did not present a danger to those
individuals coming aboard.

(Doc. 242-4 (Certificate); Doc. 242-5 (Aff. Littlepage)).

Thus, as

of August 25, 2011, the barge was certified as being clean and gas free by Littlepage via issuance
of Marine Chemist Certificate Serial No #063740.

(Doc. 242-4 (Certificate); Doc. 242-2 at 3, 5

(Dep. J.Spencer at 10, 15)).
Littlepage summarized the findings in his Marine Chemist Certificate as follows: “as of
8/25/2011, all necessary tests for hazards associated with the vessel and cargo were performed[]”
and “[t]here was nothing in my examination, inspection, or testing….which was unusual or
significantly different than prior inspections of similar barges which carried such cargo [heavy
fuel or bunker oil]. Again, had I observed any condition or situation within the tanks….that
presented danger to workers who might enter the tanks, the certificate would have reflected the
same and/or indicated that precautions be taken or – if warranted – that no entry be made.”
(Doc. 242-5 at 3 (Aff. T.Littlepage at ¶9-10).

Littlepage added that the certificate would be

void if “anything was placed in the tanks after my inspection[]” because “[a]ny change in
conditions (e.g., placing of cargo of any sort in the tank barge) would require re-evaluation and
issuing of another Certificate.”

(Id. (Aff. T.Littlepage at ¶9)).

After the marine certificate was issued on August 25, 2011, Natures Way did not store or
place any cargo in the barge’s tanks, and the barge did not move its position (it was docked at
Apex facility in Theodore, AL).

(Doc. 242-2 at 4-6 (Dep. J.Spencer at 11, 15-16)).

Likewise,

after August 25th, no one from Natures Way returned to the barge until after Apex had cleaned
6 In the event Littlepage had discovered unsafe conditions, he would have noted same on the
marine certificate as “enter with restrictions” or “not safe for workers.” (Doc. 242-5 (Aff.
T.Littlepage)). Littlepage made no such notations. (Doc. 242-4).

3

the barge at the end of its charter (to ensure compliance – i.e., that Apex left the barge clean and
gas free).

(Id. at 6-7 (Dep. J.Spencer at 16-17)).

There is no evidence that the barge’s

condition changed in any way after it was certified by Littlepage on August 25, 2011 and prior to
it being turned over to Apex on September 6, 2011.

(Doc. 242-2 (Dep. J.Spencer at 10-11);

Doc. 242-6 (Dep. B.Haas at 21-22); Doc. 242-7 (Dep. G.Hayes at 27, 30-31)).
On September 6, 2011, barge owner Natures Way executed a charter agreement with
Apex to transport “rainwater/wastewater” cargo.

(Doc. 179-4).

Pursuant to this charter

agreement, Natures Way agreed to deliver possession of the barge to Apex at Apex terminal, and
both parties agreed that the cargo to be carried would be rainwater/wastewater. (Id.) Additional
conditions included that Apex would return the barge in a “gas free” and clean condition, and
that the agreement would be governed by general maritime law with venue in the Southern
District of Alabama.

(Id.)

On September 6, 2011, Apex took delivery of the barge.

According to Apex employee Brian Haas, when the barge was delivered to Apex by Natures
Way it was clean and he did not smell anything out of the ordinary.

(Doc. 242-6 at 5-7 (Dep.

B.Haas at 20-22)).
According to Natures Way, once chartered on September 6, 2011, it relinquished control
of the barge to Apex and did not return to the barge for any kind of operations during the charter
period.

(Doc. 242-2 (Dep. J.Spencer at 15-17); Doc. 242-7 (Dep. G.Hayes at 27, 30-31)).

Natures Way only later returned to the barge, after the completion of the charter period, to
inspect it.

(Id.)

During

the

charter,

Apex

used

the

temporarily

store

rainwater/wastewater which had collected on Apex’s premises from Tropical Storm Lee.

(Doc.

4

barge’s

tanks

to

242-7 at 5 (Dep. G.Hayes at 31)).
processed water.

(Id.)

Apex then pumped it back out into the Apex system for

Before the charter was complete, and after Apex transferred the

rainwater/wastewater from its facility to the barge tanks, Apex hired USES7 to remove the
rainwater and clean the barge and its tanks.

(Doc. 242-3 at 3-5 (Dep. W.Blackmon at 22-24)).

From September 26-29, 2011, USES performed the work of removing and offloading
rainwater from the barge and cleaning the barge by having three (3) workers pressure wash the
interior of its tanks and pump out excess rainwater.
W.Blackmon at 52-53)).

(Docs. 1, 50, 59; Doc. 242-3 at 6-7 (Dep.

Pursuant to a previously executed August 13, 2010 contractual

agreement8 for temporary labor between USES and Flexicrew Staffing, Inc. (“Flexicrew”),9
USES (via Justin Plant) hired Flexicrew to provide two (2) additional workers to clean the
barge’s tanks. (Doc. 187-3 at 1-7; Doc. 242-3 at 6-7 (Dep. W.Blackmon at 52-53)). Natures
Way was not present (via agent or employee) during the cleaning operation.

(Doc. 242-2 (Dep.

J.Spencer at 16)).
Brunson, hired earlier by Flexicrew on September 4, 2011, was one of the individuals
assigned to clean the barge’s tanks. (Docs. 1, 50, 59; 179-2 at 5 (Dep. Brunson at 131)).
Brunson’s duties included performing safety work as “hold watch” on the barge’s topside, and
wiping down the stairs leading into the body of the tanks in the barge.

(Doc. 179-2 at 8, 19-23

7 Apex was required, as a condition of the charter agreement with Natures Way, to employ the
services of a third party. (Doc. 179-4).
8 Two contracts between USES and Flexicrew were submitted, dated July 26, 2010 and August
13, 2010. Flexicrew admits that the August 2010 contract governs Apex’s claims (Doc. 209 at 4); USES’
corporate representative testified that the August 2010 contract governs (Doc. 187-9 at 18-9 (Dep.
T.Bayham at 27-28)); and Apex contends as such (Docs. 187-1 at 10, 219 at 1, 9, 15).
9 Flexicrew is a staffing company which provides temporary skilled/unskilled laborers to other
businesses; Brunson was one of its employees. (Doc. 187-4 at 3, 5 (Dep. A.March at 11, 13)).

5

(Dep. Brunson at 160, 296-300)).

Brunson cleaned the tanks until September 29, 2011.

(Doc.

50; Doc. 179-2 at 18-19 (Dep. Brunson at 295-296); Doc. 258-4 at 6-9 (Dep. M.Lomas at 18-20,
22)).

While cleaning, he reported that a rash had developed on his arm and leg and that he was

losing his hair.

(Id.)

reported any injuries.

During the time the barge was being cleaned, no one other than Brunson
(Doc. 242-6 at 3 (Dep. B.Haas at 18)).

Natures Way employees boarded the barge at the end of September 2011 to inspect it to
make sure it complied with the charter with Apex – that the barge was gas free and had been
cleaned.

(Doc. 242-2 at 6-7 (Dep. J.Spencer at 16-17)).

work that USES performed.

Apex was satisfied with the cleaning

(Doc. 242-7 at 6 (Dep. G.Hayes at 50)).

On October 7, 2011, Brunson sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with chemical
exposure injuries including permanent injuries; he underwent surgery, insertion of a J-tube (a
feeding tube), was placed on a liquid diet, and continues to suffer from the effects of the
exposure.
II.

(Docs. 1, 50).

Standard of Review
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(a) (Dec. 2010).

Rule 56(c) provides as follows:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory
answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support
the fact.

6

(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may object
that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that
would be admissible in evidence.
(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may
consider other materials in the record.
(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a
motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters
stated.

FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 56(c) (Dec. 2010).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the “initial responsibility of informing the
district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Clark v.
Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). If the nonmoving party fails to make “a sufficient showing on an
essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof,” the moving
party is entitled to summary judgment.

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

“In reviewing whether the

nonmoving party has met its burden, the court must stop short of weighing the evidence and
making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter.

Instead, the evidence of the

non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.”
Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998-999 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).

7

III.

Discussion
The LHWCA provides a right of action against the owner of the vessel if a

longshoreman’s injuries were caused by the owners’ negligence or its crew.
905(b).

33 U.S.C. §

For an injured LHWCA worker to recover from the vessel owner for negligence, the

defendant must be a vessel owner under Section 905(b) and must have breached a duty to the
worker.

See, e.g., Marine Terminals v. Burnside Shipping Co., 395 U.S. 404, 415 (1969). “The

claimant [Brunson] bears the initial burden of showing negligence[.]” Hercules Carriers, Inc. v.
Claimant State of Fla., Dep’t of Transp., 768 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir. 1985).
Brunson has alleged that Natures Way breached its turnover duty.

(Doc. 50 at 5-6).

Specifically, Brunson contends that Natures Way violated Section 905(b) because it failed to
“exercise ordinary care under the circumstances to turn over the barge in a condition which
would allow USES to carry out operations with reasonabl[e] safety…”

(Doc. 285 at 2).

Brunson also alleges that Natures Way failed “to warn Plaintiff of the latent and hidden dangers
which were known or should have been known to it.” (Id. at 2-3).
Given Brunson’s allegations, this Court must determine whether he can sustain a claim
for negligence against Natures Way per the Scindia Steam Nav. Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S.
156 (1981) criteria (re: turnover duties that shipowners owe longshoremen).10 See also Howlett
v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92, 98 (1994); In re Knudsen, 710 F. Supp.2d 1252,
1269-1274 (S.D. Ala. 2010).

The turnover duty applies to the ship owner’s obligations before

the commencement of work aboard the vessel.
380 (5th Cir. 2003).

See, e.g., Moore v. M/V Angela,, 353 F.3d 376,

The turnover duty places two responsibilities on the vessel owner.

First,

10 Neither the “active operations duty” nor “duty to intervene” are asserted by Brunson; thus,
they are not at issue in this case.

8

“[a] vessel must ‘exercise ordinary care under the circumstances’ to turn over the ship and its
equipment and appliances ‘in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedoring
contractor, mindful of the dangers he should reasonably expect to encounter, arising from the
hazards of the ship's service or otherwise, will be able by the exercise of ordinary care’ to carry
on cargo operations ‘with reasonable safety to persons and property.’” Howlett, 512 U.S. at 98.
See also Scindia, 451 U.S. at 167; In re Knudsen, 710 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1269 (S.D. Ala. 2010).
Second, a corollary requires the vessel to warn the stevedore “‘of any hazards on the ship
or with respect to its equipment,’ so long as the hazards ‘are known to the vessel or should be
known to it in the exercise of reasonable care,’ and ‘would likely be encountered by the
stevedore in the course of his cargo operations[,] are not known by the stevedore[,] and would
not be obvious to or anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the performance of his
work.’” Howlett, 512 U.S. at 99. See also Kirksey, 535 F.3d at 392; In re Knudsen, 710
F.Supp.2d at 1273-1274.

“[T]he duty attaches only to latent hazards…In addition, the vessel's

duty to warn is confined to latent hazards that ‘are known to the vessel or should be known to it
in the exercise of reasonable care.’ Absent actual knowledge of a hazard, then, the duty to warn
may attach only if the exercise of reasonable care would place upon the shipowner an obligation
to inspect for, or discover, the hazard's existence.”

Howlett, 512 U.S. at 99-100.

The duty to

warn is narrow; it does not include dangers which are open or obvious, or which a reasonably
competent contractor should anticipate encountering. Id. See also Kirksey, 535 F.3d at 392; In re
Knudsen, 710 F.Supp.2d at 1273-1274.
Additionally, “fault in the abstract is not sufficient. To produce liability, the acts of
negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness must be a contributory and proximate cause of the
9

accident.” In re Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 2013 WL 425837 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2013)
(citing Hercules, 768 F.2d at 1566). Thus, breach of a turnover duty is actionable only if it is
the legal cause of the injury – i.e., the breach of a Scindia duty must have been a “substantial
factor” in the injury.

See, e.g., Moore, 353 F.3d at 383; In re Knudsen, 710 F.Supp.2d at 1269.

Brunson contends that Natures Way violated its duty to warn due to: 1) the existence of
bunker residue in the barge tanks on August 25, 2011 which was not tested; and 2) the lapse of
12 days between the issuance of the August 25th marine chemist certificate and the September 6th
charter commencement date.

(Docs. 257, 258).

Brunson asserts: “[i]t is clearly a breach of

the turnover duty not to warn … [Brunson] that …[it] did not know the nature of the residue. At
the very least, …[Natures Way] had the duty to alert… [Brunson] to the fact that it did not know
what chemicals were in the barge.”

(Doc. 258 at 6, 11). Relying on 29 C.F.R. 1915.11(b),

Brunson contends that Natures Way was negligent because Littlepage did not test or analyze
“bunker residue” and/or certify that said residue did not contain toxic or hazardous materials, so
further testing was “critical.” (Doc. 258 at 2).
29 C.F.R. Part 1915.11(b) references conditions “at the time of the inspection” and
“existing atmospheric conditions” and defines, in part, “Safe for Workers” as follows:
…denotes a space that meets the following criteria: (1) The oxygen content of the
atmosphere is at least 19.5 percent and below 22 percent by volume; (2) The
concentration of flammable vapors is below 10 percent of the lower explosive limit
(LEL); (3) Any toxic materials in the atmosphere associated with cargo, fuel, tank
coatings, or inerting media are within permissible concentrations at the time of the
inspection; and (4) Any residues or materials associated with the work authorized by
the Marine Chemist, Certified Industrial Hygienist, or competent person will not
produce uncontrolled release of toxic materials under existing atmospheric
conditions while maintained as directed….
29 C.F.R. Part 1915.11(b) (emphasis added).

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 1915 provides
10

explanations of the standard for work in confined and enclosed spaces such as a tank: “[a]ny
activity in the tank could change the atmospheric conditions in that tank… Manual tank cleaning
with high pressure spray devices can stir up residues and result in exposures to toxic
contaminants. Simple cleaning or mucking out, where employees walk through and shovel
residues and sludge, can create a change in atmospheric conditions.”
The August 25, 2011 Marine Chemist Certificate provides that the three (3) cargo tanks
are “Safe for Workers.” (Doc. 242-4 at 2).

Littlepage noted the presence of small amounts of

bunker residue, noted its consistency of “oily peanut butter,” that it rendered the space
“inappropriate for hot work” (which Brunson did not perform),11 and concluded that it was not
in such a state or quantity to be unsafe for workers.

(Doc. 242-5 at 2 (Aff. Littlepage)).

Additionally, as detailed on the face of the Marine Chemist Certificate, per Section 1915, the
certificate would be voided only “in the event of physical or atmospheric changes affecting the
Standard Safety Designations.” (Doc. 242-4 at 2).

Littlepage explained this in his affidavit --

that if any cargo were placed in the barge tanks after the August 25th inspection: “this would void
the Certificate. This is made clear on the face of the certificate. Any change in conditions (e.g.,
placing of cargo of any sort in the tank barge) would require re-evaluation and issuing of another
Certificate. This is in accord with applicable standards...which govern safety aboard tank vessels
and/or confined space entry.” (Doc. 242-5 at 3 (Aff. Littlepage at ¶9)).
Brunson has not identified any physical or atmospheric changes affecting the Standard
Safety

Designations,

to

either

void

the

August

25th

certificate

or

require

11 29 C.F.R. Part 1915.11(b) defines hot work as: “ any activity involving riveting, welding,
burning, the use of powder-actuated tools or similar fire-producing operations. Grinding, drilling, abrasive
blasting, or similar spark-producing operations are also considered hot work except when such operations
are isolated physically from any atmosphere containing more than 10 percent of the lower explosive limit
of a flammable or combustible substance.”

11

re-evaluation/re-inspection and issuing of another certificate before turnover of the barge on
September 6, 2011.

There is no evidence that the tanks were disturbed in any manner between

August 25-September 6, 2011.

Thus, the lapse of time alone does not support Brunson’s

contention of a breach of Natures Way’s turnover duty.
Brunson’s failure to test the bunker residue claim appears to be as follows: Natures Way
is liable because the “August 25 bunker residue” remained in the barge’s tanks through
September 27-29 when he cleaned the tanks and that specific residue made him sick when
activity in the tank -- manual tank cleaning and mucking out -- disturbed things.
3).

(Doc. 258 at

However, Brunson has failed to present any evidence (e.g., findings by a chemist or expert)

that the August 25, 2013 bunker residue created or could have created an unsafe work
environment such that Natures Way had a duty to warn of its existence.12 Nor has Brunson
presented any law or evidence that Natures Way’s failure to test the residue before turning the
barge over to Apex constituted negligence.
Finally, “fault in the abstract is not sufficient. To produce liability, the acts of negligence
…must be a contributory and proximate cause of the accident.” In re Royal Caribbean Cruises
Ltd., 2013 WL 425837 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2013) (citing Hercules, 768 F.2d at 1566). A breach of
a turnover duty is actionable only if it is the legal cause of Brunson’s injury. See, e.g., Moore,
353 F.3d at 383; In re Knudsen, 710 F.Supp.2d at 1269. Brunson has submitted evidence which
12 Brunson has submitted the May 10, 2012 lab results from Armstrong Forensic Laboratory,
Inc., where a lab tested three (3) of the boots that Brunson was wearing when he cleaned the tanks in late
September 2011. (Doc. 258-15). Brunson supplied these to a lab on April 30, 2012, over seven (7)
months after he cleaned the tanks, but asserts that he had not worn them in the interim. (Id; Doc. 258-16
at 5-6 (Dep. Brunson at 226-227)). The results of the testing revealed the presence of quartz, calcite and
goethite, without explanation of their significance by the technicians. (Doc. 258-15 at 8). Brunson
provided no further explanation of these results and/or how they causally relate to his cleaning of the
tanks in September 2011 and the injuries he claims to have suffered as a result of the untested residue.

12

creates an issue of fact as to whether his injuries were due to exposure to toxic chemicals.
However, Brunson has failed to present sufficient evidence that Natures Way’s conduct of
leaving residue in the barge was a contributory and proximate cause of his injuries, particularly
given Apex’ intervening use of the barge.
V.

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Natures Way’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment

(Docs. 241-243) on Brunson’s negligence claim is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 1st day of October 2013.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13