DEBOURGH MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. GSC CONSTRUCTION INC, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 11/16/2017 (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
*
for the use and benefit of
DEBOURGH MANUFACTURING COMPANY, *
Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-370(CDL)

GSC CONSTRUCTION, INC., and
*
ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, f/k/a Darwin *
National Assurance Company,
*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
In November 2014, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(“Army”) awarded a contract for a renovation project on Fort
Benning to Defendant GSC Construction (“GSC”).
Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3131-34,

Pursuant to the

GSC posted performance and

payment bonds, with Defendant Allied World Specialty Insurance
Company (“Allied”) as surety.

As part of the renovation, the

Army required GSC to install storage lockers in the buildings.
GSC

solicited

quotes

from

multiple

subcontractors

for

the

manufacture and installation of lockers that complied with the
contract specifications.

GSC submitted various locker options

to the Army that GSC believed complied with the specifications.
Nevertheless,

the

Army

rejected

all

but

the

most

expensive

option, a storage locker with woven wire mesh manufactured by

Plaintiff

Debourgh

Manufacturing

Company

woven wire lockers cost $321,943.52.
project,

GSC

only

paid

Debourgh

(“Debourgh”).

The

After completion of the
$172,494.07.

Debourgh

subsequently brought this action and alleged claims of breach of
contract and quantum meruit.

Debourgh also brought a claim on

the Miller Act payment bond.

Debourgh also sued for unexpected

costs it allegedly incurred during installation and for an award
of attorney’s fees.

Defendants contend that Debourgh improperly

caused the Army to reject the lower-cost proposals and to insist
on Debourgh’s more expensive product.

GSC therefore argues that

Debourgh should be equitably estopped from recovery.

GSC also

brought

tortious

a

counterclaim

against

Debourgh

interference with its contract with the Army.

for

Debourgh filed a

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Miller Act claim,
against GSC’s counterclaim, and for the costs of the action (ECF
No. 17).

Because Defendants cannot establish that Debourgh’s

communications with the Army influenced the Army’s requirement
for woven wire mesh lockers, the Court grants Debourgh’s motion
with respect to its Miller Act claim and GSC’s counterclaim.
Further, because Defendants pointed to no evidence or law to the
contrary,

the

Court

concludes

that

Debourgh

is

accrued finance charges on GSC’s unpaid balance.

entitled

to

Finally, the

Court denies Debourgh’s motion for costs pending the outcome of
Debourgh’s remaining claims.

2

STANDARD
Summary judgment may be granted only “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.”
Civ. P. 56(a).

In determining whether a

genuine

Fed. R.

dispute of

material fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment,
the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party
opposing summary judgment, drawing all justifiable inferences in
the opposing party’s favor.
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
A fact is material if it is relevant

or necessary to the outcome of the suit.

Id. at 248.

A factual

dispute is genuine if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury
to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.

Id.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movants, the
record reveals the following:
I.

Debourgh’s 2013 Project
Sometime in 2013, Debourgh manufactured and installed woven

wire

mesh

TA-50

equipment

project on Fort Benning.

storage

lockers

for

a

different

Salo Dep. 37:13-17, ECF No. 25-2.

Debourgh’s point of contact with the Army for that project was
First Lieutenant Aaron Boyer.

GSC was not involved in the 2013

project.

3

II.

Buildings 2944-2945 Project
In November 2014, the Army awarded GSC a contract for the

renovation of Buildings 2944 and 2945 on Fort Benning.
the

requirements

of

the

contract

was

lockers in the renovated buildings.

to

install

One of

equipment

The contract set forth some

specifications for the lockers, but it did not require the use
of woven wire mesh.
Phillips

sent

an

In January 2015, GSC vice president John

email

to

Debourgh

requesting

a

quote

for

lockers that complied with the specifications in the contract.
Phillips attached pictures of the Debourgh lockers from the 2013
project to his email.

Phillips explained that the lockers in

the attached pictures were the ones that GSC needed for the
2944-2945 project.
Debourgh

Sales

Berg Decl. Ex. A, Email from Phillips to

(Jan.

30,

2015),

ECF

No.

17-2

at

10.

In

response, Debourgh sales representative Patrick Berg sent GSC a
quote

of

$309,480.10

for

the

woven

matched the lockers in the picture.

wire

mesh

lockers

that

Berg Decl. Ex. B, Woven

Wire Mesh Quote (Feb. 16, 2015), ECF No. 17-2 at 21.

Berg also

sent GSC a quote of $265,124.38 for expanded metal mesh lockers.
Berg Decl. Ex. C, Expanded Metal Mesh Quote (Feb. 16, 2015), ECF
No. 17-2 at 24.
GSC also solicited quotes from Lyon Workspaces, a competing
locker manufacturer.

In June 2015, GSC submitted Lyon lockers

to the Army at a cost of $170,065.00.

4

Def. Allied’s Resp. Ex.

D, Letter from GSC to Army, ECF No. 24-4 at 13-17.
2015, the Army rejected this submittal.

In July

In its rejection, the

Army explained to GSC that the lockers used in the 2944-2945
project “[m]ust replicate existing 3/75 Quad COF TA50 lockers
exactly . . . .”

Def. Allied’s Resp. Ex. F,

Remarks (July 30, 2015), ECF No. 24-6 at 1.

Gov’t Review
GSC submitted

another Lyon product in August 2015, which was also rejected by
the Army because it “[did] not meet the owner requirements.”1
Def. Allied’s Resp. Ex. F, Gov’t Review Remarks (Sept. 2, 2015),
ECF No. 24-6 at 2.
In

September

2015,

after

the

Army

rejected

the

Lyon

lockers, GSC submitted the Debourgh woven wire mesh lockers to
the

Army

September
lockers.

for
30,

approval.
2015,

The

giving

Army
GSC

accepted

the

go

this

ahead

to

proposal
order

on
the

Berg Supplemental Decl. Ex. B, Army Approval for Woven

1

After the Army rejected both of GSC’s Lyon submittals, GSC wrote to
the Army and protested that it was being forced to buy lockers from a
single source. In response, the Army explained that the Lyon products
were rejected because they were “not galvanized and [did] not have
individual five knuckle hinges” as required by the Request for
Proposals (“RFP”). Def. Allied’s Resp. Ex. G, Letter from Army to GSC
(Oct. 7, 2015), ECF No. 24-7. The Army further noted that “[a] quick
review from our office indicates Wire Crafters, Jesco, and Standard
Wire Steel, all manufacture TA-50 lockers that meet the RFP
requirements.”
Id.
In June 2016, GSC renewed its dispute with the
Army.
Def. Allied’s Resp. Ex. D, Letter from GSC to Army (June 28,
2016), ECF No. 24-4.
In its June 2016 letter, GSC argued that the
Lyon lockers actually met the requirements of the RFP because the
lockers had “continuous hinges, allowing them to be stronger[,]” and
because “[e]lectro-galvanizing and galvanneal are really the same
process which provides better paint adhesion and interaction with
potential weather elements.”
Id. at 1.
Neither party offered any
evidence about the outcome of this grievance.

5

Wire Mesh Lockers, ECF No. 27-1 at 23-26.

On November 6, 2015,

GSC emailed Berg and placed an order for the expanded metal mesh
lockers, not the woven wire mesh lockers that had been submitted
to and approved by the Army.

Berg Decl. Ex. E, Email from GSC

to Berg (Nov. 6, 2015), ECF No. 17-2 at 29-31.

To meet the

deadline for the project, Debourgh began processing the order
immediately.

Berg Supplemental Decl. Ex. A, Email from Berg to

GSC (Nov. 9, 2015), ECF No. 27-1 at 16-17.
III.

Replacement Locker for the 2013 Project
Around

the

same

time,

Berg

and

Lieutenant

Boyer

discussing a replacement locker for the 2013 project.

began

Sometime

before August 2015, someone vandalized a locker from the 2013
project.

Salo Dep. 40:10-21.

On August 24, 2015, Lieutenant

Boyer sent an email to Debourgh about repairing or replacing the
vandalized

locker.

In

his

email,

Lieutenant

Boyer

asked

Debourgh whether it had “been able to identify a model number or
a price of the wall lockers in the photos [Boyer] sent last
week?”

Def. Allied’s Resp. Ex. B, Email from Boyer to Debourgh

(Aug. 24, 2015), ECF No. 24-2 at 19.

Berg replied to Boyer and

said he was “working out how to get you a replacement locker . .
. .”

Id., Email from Berg to Boyer (Aug. 24, 2015), ECF No. 24-

2 at 18.

Berg told Boyer that he was working with GSC on the

2944-2945 project.

Berg explained that he had not yet received

the purchase order for the 2944-2945 project, but that if the

6

lockers for the purchase order matched the locker that Boyer
sought to replace, Berg “would be willing to just add on an
additional locker” to the 2944-2945 project run to keep the cost
down for Boyer.

Id.

Berg then asked if Boyer was familiar with

the 2944-2945 project and whether Boyer knew
contact

to

learn

more

about

the

project’s

who Berg could
schedule.

Berg

concluded by saying “[if] I’m not able to tie these together, I
Id.2

can get you a separate price ASAP.”

Boyer replied by giving Berg the contact information for
Jennifer Mason, the project engineer for the 2944-2945 project.
Berg replied that he would contact Mason about the 2944-2945
locker completion schedule.

Berg also quoted Boyer prices of

$1,170.65 to replace the single locker as a separate order and
$462.60 to bundle the replacement locker with the prospective
2944-2945 project order.

Id., Email from Berg to Boyer (Aug.

24, 2015), ECF No. 24-2 at 16.

Boyer accepted the $462.60

option, and explained that he was waiting to hear from Mason
about when the order would ship.

Id., Email from Boyer to Berg

(Sept. 1, 2015), ECF No. 24-2 at 15.
In

November

2015,

after

Berg

received

the

GSC

purchase

order for expanded metal mesh lockers, Berg followed up with
Boyer.

Berg explained that while Debourgh had been granted the

2

Around the same time, Berg followed up with Phillips about the status
of the project.
Berg also informed Phillips of his correspondence
with Boyer about the replacement locker. See Def. Allied’s Resp. Ex.
B, Email from Berg to Phillips (Aug. 28, 2015), ECF No. 24-2 at 4.

7

purchase order for the 2944-2945 project, the order had been
“changed” and
Boyer’s

called for different lockers than the ones

building.

Therefore,

Berg

discount on the replacement locker.

could

not

offer

in

Boyer

a

Id., Email from Berg to

Boyer (Nov. 13, 2015), ECF No. 24-2 at 14.

Boyer replied that

he had spoken with Mason and that she was not aware of any
“change” in the locker order.

Instead, Boyer indicated that

“[w]e would like to keep the original lockers, if possible.”
Id., Email from Boyer to Berg (Nov. 16, 2015), ECF No. 24-2 at
13.

Berg

explained

that

the

“change”

was

that

the

“[new

facility] chose a locker that does not match the unite you’re
needing to be replaced.”

Id., Email from Berg to Boyer (Nov.

16, 2015), ECF No. 24-2 at 13.
IV.

Change of GSC’s Locker Order
Not

long

after

Berg

sent

the

last

email

to

Boyer,

GSC

called Berg and indicated that they might need to change their
order for the 2944-2945 project.

Berg Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 17-2.

Phillips emailed Berg and explained that the Army “is expecting
the woven wire lockers because those [are the lockers] we indeed
actually submitted for approval some time ago . . . .”

Berg

Decl. Ex. H., Email from Phillips to Berg (Nov. 19, 2015), ECF
No. 17-2 at 48-49.

Berg advised Phillips that switching to

woven wire mesh at that point would increase cost and delay
delivery.

Phillips then stated that if Berg could “talk to the

8

[Army]

and

problem!”

backchannel

this

.

.

.

it

would

solve

a

major

Id., Email from Phillips to Berg (Nov. 19, 2015), ECF

NO. 17-2 at 46.

Phillips noted that Debourgh’s “[expanded] wire

mesh lockers that we sent the [purchase order] for meet the spec
we were given, as we showed you.
all out!”

Id.

Let me know if you can help us

Berg agreed that the expanded metal mesh met the

Army’s specifications and asked for the contact information of
Phillips’s “end user” with the Army.

Phillips replied that the

end user was “the soldier that you have talked to in the past
for the Rangers.
Boyer . . . .”

A Captain, I believe.

Id., Email from Phillips to Berg (Nov. 19,

2015), ECF No. 17-2
Phillips.

Or maybe Lieutenant

at 43.

The next day, Berg replied to

Berg stated that he had talked to Boyer and that

Boyer had indicated that the Army would only accept woven wire
mesh lockers in the 2944-2945 project.
could

still

meet

the

deadline,

Berg

To ensure that Debourgh
immediately

material needed for the woven wire mesh lockers.

ordered

the

Id., Email

from Berg to Phillips (Nov. 20, 2015), ECF No. 17-2 at 42-43.
Phillips later replied that “[i]f the order has been placed for
the wire mesh that the [Army] wants then we are good to go . . .
I will just have to sort out the timing of it, and also the
increased charges for it that I will have to ask the Government
to recoup me for.”

Id., Email from Phillips to Berg (Nov. 20,

2015), ECF No. 17-2 at 40-41.

9

Debourgh ultimately delivered and installed the woven wire
mesh

lockers.

locker.

Debourgh

Debourgh

also

billed

separate purchase order.

supplied

the

Boyer’s

replacement

Salo Dep. 37:18-23.

locker

$321,943.52.

through

a

The Army approved

the 2944-2945 project lockers in February 2016.
¶ 7, ECF No. 25-6.

replacement

Phillips Decl.

The parties agree that the lockers cost

Berg Decl. Ex. M, Debourgh Invoice to GSC, ECF No.

17-2 at 71; see also Def. GSC’s Answer & Countercl. 6, ECF No. 8
(“The Debourgh product demanded by the Army cost $321,943.52.”).
GSC paid Debourgh $172,494.07, or the amount that GSC would have
paid Lyon had the Army accepted GSC’s first submittal.
Decl. ¶ 14.

Berg

After awaiting payment for several months, Debourgh

filed this action.
V.

Debourgh’s Statement of Material Facts
Allied urges the Court to strike Debourgh’s Statement of

Material Facts.

Local Rule 56 requires summary judgment movants

to file a separate statement of material facts to which the
movant contends there is no genuine dispute to be tried.
Ga. R. 56.

M.D.

“Éach material fact shall be numbered separately and

shall be supported by specific citation to particular parts of
materials in the record.”
material

facts

did

not

Id.

Debourgh’s initial statement of

separately

number

each

fact.

This

required Defendants to spend unnecessary time identifying each
fact before replying.

“[E]ven though local rules are valid and

10

binding on the parties, their enforcement must be temepered with
due

consideration

Cruise

Lines,

of

Inc.

the

782

circumstances.”

F.2d

curiam) (footnote omitted).

923,

924

Cohen

(11th

v.

Cir.

Carnival

1986)

(per

Here, though all the parties are

corporations represented by counsel, the Court finds that the
circumstances

do

material facts.

not

merit

striking

Debourgh’s

statement

of

Debourgh rectified its error by submitting a

modified statement that incorporated Defendants’ responses.

The

Court is satisfied with the briefing and the record that have
been provided.
unnecessary

to

Given the circumstances, the Court thinks it
strike

Debourgh’s

statement,

unnecessarily

prolong this action, and await a later opportunity to reach the
same

conclusion

reached

in

this

Order.

Therefore,

Allied’s

request to strike is denied.
DISCUSSION
Debourgh moves for summary judgment on its claim on the
Miller Act payment bond for the 2944-2945 project.
a

claim

under

the

Miller

Act,

Debourgh

must

To establish

show

“1)

that

materials were supplied for work in the particular contract at
issue; 2) that the supplier is unpaid; 3) that the supplier had
a good faith belief that the materials were for the specified
work; and 4) that jurisdictional requirements are met.”

U.S. ex

rel. Krupp Steel Prods., Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 831 F.2d 978,
980 (11th Cir. 1987).

Defendants do not dispute that Debourgh

11

established

these

elements.

Instead,

Defendants

argue

that

Debourgh should be equitably estopped from recovery and that
Debourgh is liable to GSC for tortious interference with its
contract

with

the

Army.

evidence

that

could

Because

support

these

Defendants
claims,

pointed

the

to

Court

no

grants

Debourgh’s motion for summary judgment on its Miller Act bond,
against GSC’s counterclaim, and for the finance charges on GSC’s
unpaid balance.

The Court denies Debourgh’s motion for costs

pending adjudication of Debourgh’s remaining claims.
I.

Defendants’ Equitable Estoppel Defense
Defendants

contend

that

Debourgh

should

be

estopped from recovering on its Miller Act claim.

equitably
Defendants

argue that “Plaintiff used it[s] relationship with the Army on
previous projects to get the Army to reject every other locker
presented, besides Plaintiff’s most expensive quote.

But for

Plaintiff’s interference in this project by its communications
directed

to

the

Army

behind

the

scenes

and

without

GSC’s

knowledge, GSC would have spent only $170,000 on lockers for the
project . . . .”

Def. Allied’s Resp. 13, ECF No. 26; see also

Def. GSC’s Resp. 6-7, ECF No. 25 (making the same argument).
The record evidence, however, does not support this theory.

The

Army rejected GSC’s first Lyon locker submittal on July 30, 2015
and explained to GSC that the lockers in the 2944-2945 project
“must match existing 3/75 Quad COF TA50 lockers exactly.”

12

Def.

Allied’s Resp. Ex. F, Gov’t Review Remarks (July 30, 2015), ECF
No. 24-6.

Therefore, the Army expressed its requirement for

woven wire mesh lockers as early as July 30, 2015.3

There is no

evidence, however, that Debourgh had any contact with the Army
until almost a month later on August 24, 2015, when Berg replied
to Boyer’s email.

Therefore, there is no evidence that Debourgh

used its pre-existing relationship with the Army to “get the
Army to reject every other locker presented.”
7.

Def. GSC’s Resp.

Instead, the evidence demonstrates that the Army required

woven

wire

mesh

lockers

at

least

one

month

before

Debourgh

communicated with the Army (and then, it was in response to
Boyer’s

question

about

replacing

the

vandalized

locker).

Consequently, there is no genuine dispute about whether Debourgh
improperly

influenced

arguments

contesting

Debourgh’s

Therefore,

the

grants

Court

the

Army.

Defendants
Miller

summary

Act

judgment

make

no

bond
in

other
claim.

favor

of

Debourgh on its Miller Act claim.4

3

In fact, the requirement for woven wire mesh lockers may have been in
place even earlier. In his initial email to Debourgh in January 2015,
Phillips attached a picture of the Debourgh lockers from the 2013
project and explained that “[t]he attached photos show the locker we
need.” Berg Decl. Ex. A, Email from Phillips to Debourgh Sales (Jan.
30, 2015), ECF No. 17-2 at 10.
Phillips’s email suggests that GSC
knew from the outset that the Army required woven wire mesh lockers,
further undermining Defendants’ assertion that Debourgh “manipulated
the Army to modify the project’s specifications for its benefit.”
Def. GSC’s Resp. 4.
4
Debourgh also urges the Court to strike portions of Phillips’s
declaration. Pl.’s Reply 6, ECF No. 27. Even if these paragraphs are

13

II.

Defendants’ Tortious Interference Counterclaim
GSC brought a counterclaim against Debourgh for “tortious

interference with contracts.”
ECF No. 8.

Def. GSC’s Answer & Countercl. 7,

To establish this claim, GSC must show that Debourgh

“(1) acted improperly or wrongfully and without privilege; (2)
acted purposely, with malice, and with the intent to injure; (3)
induced a third party to breach a contract with the plaintiff;
and

(4)

caused

plaintiff

financial

injury.”

Shiho

Seki

v.

Groupon, Inc., 333 Ga.App. 319, 323, 775 S.E.2d 776, 780 (Ga.
Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Medlin v. Morganstern, 601 S.E.2d 359,
361-62 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)).
judgment on this claim.
and

pointed

to

no

Debourgh also moved for summary

In its response, GSC made no arguments

evidence

in

support

of

its

counterclaim.

Because the Army required the use of woven wire mesh lockers
before any contact between the Army and Debourgh, GSC cannot
show that Debourgh induced the Army to breach its contract with
GSC.

Thus,

counterclaim.

GSC

cannot

establish

the

third

element

of

its

Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in

favor of Debourgh on GSC’s counterclaim.5

admissible, the Court concludes that they do not create a genuine fact
dispute. Therefore, Debourgh’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
5
The Court further notes that neither GSC nor Allied made any
arguments in favor of GSC’s counterclaim in their responses.
Defendants did not identify the elements of their counterclaim or
point to any evidence that could support those elements.
Therefore,
the Court deems GSC’s counterclaim abandoned. Resolution Trust Corp.
v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir. 1995) (en banc).

14

III. Debourgh’s Finance Charges
Debourgh also contends that it should recover the accrued
finance charges on GSC’s unpaid balance.

Debourgh’s original

invoice to GSC clearly stated that “[i]nvoices over 90 days past
due are subject to finance charges of 1-1/2% per month.”

Berg

Decl. Ex. M, Invoice from Debourgh to GSC, ECF No. 17-2 at 71.
In its motion, Debourgh clearly sought summary judgment on the
accrued finance charges.

Defendants, however, pointed the Court

to no evidence disputing the accrued finance charges and to no
law suggesting that the finance charges are not recoverable.
Therefore, based on the circumstances and the record of this
case, the Court concludes that the accrued finance charges are
also recoverable.
Based on the evidence, the accrued finance charges when the
Complaint was filed totaled $15,066.50.

Berg Decl. Ex. N., GSC

Invoices for Finance Charges, ECF No. 17-2 at 74-79.

Therefore,

when Debourgh filed its Complaint, GSC owed Debourgh $164,511.95
($149,445.45
charges).

in

unpaid

principal

and

$15,066.50

in

finance

This amount is subject to the 1.5% finance charge

each month from November 2016 to October 2017 (12 compounding
periods).
for

12

A principal of $164,511.95 compounded monthly at 1.5%
months

yields

$32,181.53

in

additional

interest.

Therefore, Defendants are liable to Debourgh in the amount of
$196,693.48.

In

lieu

of

any

additional

15

court-ordered

post-

judgment

interest,

Debourgh’s

finance

charge

of

1.5%

shall

continue to apply until Defendants satisfy the judgment.
IV.

Debourgh’s Remaining Claims
Debourgh

additionally

costs of this action.”

urges

the

Court

to

award

it

“all

Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. 3.

In

its Complaint, however, Debourgh also alleged state law claims
of breach of contract and quantum meruit.
1 & 2, ECF No. 1.
for

$13,285

for

Pl.’s Compl., Counts

Debourgh also alleged that GSC is responsible
additional

costs

Debourgh

interference with its work by others.”

incurred

“due

to

Berg Decl. ¶ 15; see

also Berg Decl. Ex. P, Email from Berg to Phillips (Apr. 13,
2016), ECF No. 17-2 at 83-84 (outlining the alleged additional
costs

Debourgh

attorney’s fees.

incurred).

Debourgh

Compl. ¶¶ 12, 17.

also

made

a

claim

for

Neither party moved for

summary judgment on any of these remaining claims.

The Court

therefore denies Debourgh’s motion for costs pending disposition
of the remaining claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Debourgh’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is granted in part and denied in
part.

The Court enters judgment in favor of Debourgh on its

Miller Act bond claim in the amount of $196,693.48.
Allied,

as

principal

and

liable for this amount.

surety,

are

jointly

and

GSC and
severally

The monthly finance charge of 1.5%

16

shall continue to apply.

No other court-ordered post-judgment

interest shall accrue.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of November, 2017.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

17