case 3:16-cv-00553-baj-rlb document 147 …case 3:16-cv-00553-baj-rlb document 144 07/16/18 page 1...

Case 3:16-cv-00553-BAJ-RLB Document 147 07/20/18 of 1

Case 3:16-cv-00553-BAJ-RLB Document 148 07/20/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MINUTE ENTRY:JULY 16, 2018JACKSON, C. J.

BLAKE HUVALCIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 16-00553-BAJBATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL

This matter came this day for trial by jury.

PRESENT: Justin E. Alsterberg, Esq.Emily Stevens Hardin, Esq.Counsel for Plaintiff, Blake Huval

Deelee S. Morris, Esq.Tedrick K. Knightshed, Esq.Alan Gregory Rome, Esq.Counsel for Defendants, Baton Rouge Police Department, Corporal Troy McCreary, Officer Ory Holmes

Prospective jurors are sworn on voir dire.

Outside the presences of the jury, and for reasons stated by the Court, Juror #5

and Juror #20 are excused for cause.

The Court grants the Motion by Defendants to excuse Juror #5 and Juror #20 for

cause.

Counsel state no objection to the make-up of the jury.

Selected jurors are duly sworn to try the case and instructed by the Court.

Outside the presences of the jury, and for reasons read into the record, the Court

denies the Motion in Limine filed by the Defendants (doc. 138).

Order of Sequestration is invoked.


Counsel presents opening statements to the Court.

At the request of Counsel, Joint Exhibits J1-J9 are admitted by the Court.

Without objection, Exhibits P1 and P2 are admitted.

Lauren Huval and Dr. Robin Dale are sworn and testify on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Officer Ory Holmes is sworn and testifies on behalf of the Defendants.

Exhibits filed.

Jury trial in this matter to resume on July 17, 2018 at 8:30 a.m.

*****N. Breaux/reporter8.5


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MINUTE ENTRY:JULY 17, 2018JACKSON, C. J.

BLAKE HUVALCIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 16-00553-BAJBATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL

Jury trial in this matter continues from July 16, 2018..

PRESENT: Justin E. Alsterberg, Esq.Emily Stevens Hardin, Esq.Counsel for Plaintiff, Blake Huval

Deelee S. Morris, Esq.Tedrick K. Knightshed, Esq.Alan Gregory Rome, Esq.Counsel for Defendants, Baton Rouge Police Department, Corporal Troy McCreary, Officer Ory Holmes

Ava Burkett, Danny Ray Williams, Cheree Burkett, Allison Huvall, Chase Huvall,

Tom Weber, and Officer Troy McCreary are sworn and testify on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Exhibits filed.

Jury trial in this matter to resume on July 18, 2018 at 8:30 a.m.

*****N. Breaux/reporter6.50


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BLAKE HUVAL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 3:16-CD-00553-BAJ-RLB THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPT. THROUGH THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, CPL. TROY MCCREARY, OFFICER ORY HOLMES, THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPT., THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTRUAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AND OFFICER JOHN DOE

STATUS REPORT

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff Blake Huval

and Defendants Baton Rouge Police Department through the City of Baton Rouge/Parish

of East Baton Rouge (“BRPD”), Cpl. Troy McCreary, Officer Ory Holmes, Board of

Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

(“LSU”), and Barco Enterprises, Inc. (“Barco”), who pursuant to the Court’s September 9,

2016 Order (Doc. #9), file this Status Report in accordance with Attachment A to the

Order.

A. JURISDICTION

What is the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court? 1. Plaintiff: This matter was removed to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1141. Federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, exists over Plaintiff’s claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as they are so related to Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted by plaintiff arising under 42 U.S.C. §


2

1983 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims asserted by plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because those claims are so related to the claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for which this Court has original jurisdiction, that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

3. Defendant LSU:

4. Defendant Barco: All properly joined and served parties are alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights, and he has made claims arising under Federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. All other claims made by Plaintiff and arising under state tort law form part of the same case or controversy as the 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, and this Court has jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, supplemental jurisdiction.

B. BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff: On the evening of March 8, 2014, Plaintiff, his wife, his brother—Chase Huval, a Louisiana State Trooper—and his brother’s wife patronized the restaurant The Chimes (an entity of Defendant Barco) and then listened to a band at the next door establishment. Plaintiff and his companions left after midnight to go home (therefore, March 9th). They waited for their ride to go home in a parking lot adjacent to The Chimes, and soon after their ride arrived but before they could leave, a group of young men approached them in a state distress indicating that they were fleeing a fight. Plaintiff and his brother told the men that they would wait with them until they could secure a ride home.

Soon after, Corporal McCreary and Officer Holmes with the Baton Rouge Police Department approached Plaintiff and his party asking Plaintiff for identification. Plaintiff’s brother approached McCreary to show his identification as a State Trooper and explain the situation. As Plaintiff’s brother proceeded, Holmes electrocuted him from behind with a Taser causing him to collapse. It was later discovered that McCreary and Holmes were working a security detail for Defendant Barco at the time.

At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was holding a beer bottle. Fearing for his life and safety, Plaintiff placed his bottle on the ground but was then immediately punched, hit, restrained, wrestled to the ground, and then kicked by both Holmes and McCreary. While restrained on the ground, an LSU police officer, Lt. Farrell Latour, arrived on the scene and helped restrained Plaintiff and used his foot to forcefully turn Plaintiff over.


3

Plaintiff was later wrongfully charged with assault of a police officer with a dangerous weapon and intentional interference with police officer acting in their official capacities. As a result of the Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered physical injuries to his jaw (TMJ), back, ribs, knee, elbow, and neck (cervical strain). In addition, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress which has caused shaking, crying, insomnia, lack of focus, anxiety, depression, and an inability to feel pleasure. Plaintiff is currently in treatment for both his physical injuries and mental distress. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Damages in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Parish against BRPD, Holmes, McCreary, LSU, and Latour (the identify was not known at the time of filing, hence “John Doe”). In his petition, Plaintiff’s causes of action against Defendants included battery, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Through discovery, Plaintiff learned of the identity of the LSU officer and that Holmes and McCreary were working a security detail for Barco d/b/a The Chimes at the time of the incident. Therefore, Plaintiff filed an amended petition adding Barco and Barco’s insurer (identify unknown at this time) as defendants. Plaintiff alleged the same causes of action against Barco as it did against the already named Defendants. However, Plaintiff added negligent supervision and negligent hiring claims against Barco. On August 22, 2016, Barco removed the action to this Court.

2. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: On March 8, 2014, plaintiff alleged he was subjected to false arrest and excessive force by Baton Rouge City police officers, Troy McCreary and Ory Holmes, who were working extra-duty security for the Chimes Restaurant located at 3357 Highland Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70902. Plaintiff claims that he and his brother were assisting some individuals involved in a physical altercation when they were subsequently confronted by the officers. Officers McCreary and Holmes were investigating fight and attempted to detain one of the individuals for further questioning. Plaintiff and his brother refused to comply with the officers’ instructions. The actions of the plaintiff and his brother presented an endangerment to the officers’ safety, and Officer Holmes deployed his Tazer on the brother. Plaintiff subsequently attempted to attack Officer Holmes which resulted in a necessary physical altercation to restrain the plaintiff and his brother. As a result of this incident, the plaintiff was arrested for LSA R.S. §14:37, Aggravated Assault; LSA R.S. § 14:34.2, Battery of an Officer; LSA R.S. § 14:108.2, Resisting Officer by Force, and LSA R.S. § 14:103 Disturbing the Peace/Public Intoxication.


4

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because there are insufficient factual allegations showing that defendants violated any of plaintiff’s civil rights under the United States Constitution, or applicable federal law. A violation of plaintiff’s state created civil rights or liberties does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted by this Court. Defendants did not deprive plaintiff of any vested liberty or property interests in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff received all the process that was due under the Constitution of the United States. As a municipality, defendant City of Baton Rouge cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior. Defendant has no knowledge of an adopted or instituted official municipal policy or governmental custom which was a moving force in depriving the plaintiff’s federally protected rights. Defendant did not commit a failure to supervise, train, or hire which resulted in a violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights or act with deliberate indifference. Defendant officers did not use any force which was unnecessary or excessive under the circumstances or which rises to the level of a constitutional violation. In the alternative, if force was used against plaintiff, then the only force used was that force reasonably necessary for defendants to bring plaintiff under control in order to protect the life and safety of plaintiff, and all others present and to maintain the security of the situation. It did not constitute any unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. In the alternative, if any defendant is found by the Court to have violated plaintiff’s civil rights, then each such defendant is immune from a judgment for damages because each defendant acted at all times reasonably and in good faith and in accordance with federal and state law and police department rules and regulations. Defendants’ conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of plaintiff of which a reasonable person would have known. Said defendants further show that their beliefs in the lawfulness of their actions was a reasonable belief and for that reason they are entitled to absolute and/or qualified immunity from liability under the provisions of Title 42 USC 1983. Further, defendants are entitled to statutory immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2798.1. In the alternative, if any defendant is found to have violated plaintiff’s rights and is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, then plaintiff through intentional or negligent acts and failure to act as a reasonable person, contributed to his own injuries or damages. Plaintiff’s arrest was lawful. The law does not allow any individual to resist a lawful arrest. The


5

officers are exempt from liability. The plaintiff can show no use of excessive force. As such, the defendants cannot be held liable. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive, declaratory, or monetary relief. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.

3. Defendant LSU: LSU denies that there is a legal entity known as the “Louisiana State University Police Department.” The proper party defendant is the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (referred to as LSU). LSU denies that it is liable to the plaintiff but states the plaintiff’s claims against it are subject to the monetary limits set out in La. R.S. 13:5106 and that it is entitled to statutory immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2798.1. Further, the plaintiff’s claims are barred by his own negligence and/or contributory negligence. Additionally, LSU is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and therefore the plaintiff has no claim against it under this provision. Alternatively, LSU is entitled to immunity and/or qualified immunity from these claims. Finally, any damage which may have been sustained by the plaintiff was caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence and/or the fault of others for which LSU is not responsible or liable. LSU did not deprive the plaintiff any vested liberty or property rights or did it use any force which was unnecessary or excessive under the circumstances or which rise to the level or a violation of the law or the constitution.

4. Defendant Barco: Upon information and belief, Plaintiff, Blake Huval, was on LSU’s campus, at or near the visitor’s center, waiting for a ride home after leaving a show at The Varsity. While in the parking-lot, not owned or operated by Barco, Huval was involved in an altercation. The nature and extent of his involvement in the altercation remains to be determined. Upon information and belief, Officers Ory Holmes and Troy McCreary were directed to the scene of the altercation on LSU’s campus by unknown, third-parties. The Officers left the area near The Chimes and responded to the reported altercation. The Officers ultimately arrested Blake Huval, and he was charged with several felonies. At this time or until recently, Huval has been in pre-trial diversion program related to the events of that night/morning.

Barco denies that it is responsible in any way for the accident made the basis of this litigation. Further, Barco denies that the Plaintiff can establish that he has a cause of action against Barco, a private actor, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. It is denied that Officers Holmes and McCreary are employees of the Barco. In the alternative and to the extent Officers Holmes and McCreary are found to be employees of Barco, it is denied that Officers Holmes an McCreary were in the course and scope of their employment at the time of this incident. In the further alternative, Barco pleads that Officers McCreary and Holmes were merely borrowed


6

employees, who returned solely to the employee of their principal employer, the City of Baton Rouge/Baton Rouge Police Department, when responding to the altercation on LSU’s campus. Finally, Barco denies all allegations of negligent hiring, training supervision or other state law tort claims.

Barco also asserts that all claims against it are barred by the applicable prescriptive period/statute of limitations, as the lawsuit was not brought against it until more than two years after the incident at issue.

C. PENDING MOTIONS

List any pending motion(s), the date filed, and the basis of the motion(s):

1. None at this time.

D. ISSUES

List the principal legal issues involved and indicate whether or not any of those issues are in dispute:

1. Plaintiff: Based on the details provided in Section B(1) and Plaintiff’s original and amended petitions, Plaintiff has alleged battery, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff has brought additional claims of negligent supervision and negligent hiring against Barco.

Based on Defendants’ responses, it appears that essentially all aspects of Plaintiff’s claims are in dispute.

2. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: a. Whether the plaintiffs’ constitutional and/or statutory rights were

violated; b. The damages, if any, suffered by the plaintiff; c. Whether defendants are entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §

1988; d. Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; e. Whether the plaintiff can establish any claim under Louisiana state

tort law; and f. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages


7

3. Defendant LSU:

a. Whether LSU is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983. Alternatively, whether LSU is entitled to immunity and/or qualified immunity.

b. Whether the plaintiff’s claims are barred by his own negligence and/or contributory negligence.

c. Whether LSU or anyone for whom it was responsible deprived the plaintiff of any liberty or property right and/or used excessive and/or unnecessary force under the circumstances.

d. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.

4. Defendant Barco: All issues inherent pleadings filed herein, including, but not limited to liability, causation, and damages. Please see section B 2 for additional details.

E. DAMAGES

Separately, for each party who claims damages or an offset, set forth the computation of damages or the offset:

1. Plaintiff:

a. Special Damages, medicals: approximately $6,073. As Plaintiff is still treating, his medical expenses will continue to accrue.

b. Special Damages, lost wages: Still being calculated and will continue to increase as Plaintiff is still missing work in order to treat.

c. General Damages: Still being calculated and will continue to increase.

d. All other damages: Still being calculated and will continue to increase.

2. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: Defendants allege that the

Plaintiff has not suffered any loss, and as such is not entitled to damages. Defendants’ have qualified immunity in this matter.

3. Defendant LSU: Unknown at this time. LSU denies that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against it but states alternatively that it is entitled to a setoff and/or credit for any sums earned or which could have been earned in accordance with the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate his damages.

4. Defendant Barco: Unknown at this time, as discovery in this matter is ongoing.


8

F. SERVICE: Identify any unresolved issues as to waiver or service of process, personal jurisdiction, or venue:

1. None

G. DISCOVERY

1. Initial Disclosures:

a. Have the initial disclosures required under FRCP 26(a)(1) been completed?

[ ] YES [X] NO

The will provide their initial disclosures to the opposing party no later than 7 days before the date of the scheduling conference.

b. Do any parties object to initial disclosures?

[ ] YES [X] NO

2. Briefly describe any discovery that has been completed or is in progress: a. Plaintiff: Plaintiffs have propounded both Interrogatories and

Requests for Production of Documents on BRPD, McCreary, Holmes, and LSU, which Defendants responded to. BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes propounded Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff, which he responded to.

b. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: Defendants, City/Parish has answered Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents received from Plaintiff, Blake Huval. Deposition of Blake Huval is scheduled for Friday, October 14, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. Deposition of Lt. Farrell Latour is scheduled for October 25, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

c. Defendant LSU: The parties have exchanged written discovery and have scheduled the plaintiff’s deposition and that of LSU’s Farrell Latour.

d. Defendant Barco: Discovery in this matter has just begun for Defendant, Barco. Numerous depositions are required, and several depositions are set to go forward in the coming months.


9

3. Please describe any protective orders or other limitations on discovery that

may be required/sought during the course of discovery. (For example: are

there any confidential business records or medical records that will be

sought? Will information that is otherwise privileged be at issue?)

a. None at this time.

4. Discovery from experts:

Identify the subject matter(s) as to which expert testimony will be offered:

a. Plaintiff: None at this time.

b. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: None at this time.

c. Defendant LSU: Unknown at this time.

d. Defendant Barco: Defendant, Barco, is not certain which, if any, experts it will or may obtain in this litigation. Defendant reserves the right to obtain an IME, vocational rehabilitation, and any other expert required by discovery.

H. PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

1. If the parties propose an alternative timeframe for exchanging initial

disclosures, please provide that proposed deadline:

a. October 28, 2016

2. Recommended deadlines to join other parties or to amend the pleadings:

a. November 2, 2016

3. Filing all discovery motions and completing all discovery except experts:

a. May 31, 2017 4. Disclosure of identities and resumés of expert witnesses (if appropriate,

you may suggest different dates for disclosure of experts in different

subject matters):


10

a. Plaintiff discloses June 30, 2017

b. Defendants disclose July 31, 2017

5. Exchange of expert reports:

a. Plaintiff discloses July 31, 2017

b. Defendants disclose August 31, 2017

6. Completion of discovery from experts:

a. October 2, 2017

7. Filing dispositive motions and Daubert motions:

a. November 15, 2017

8. All remaining deadlines and the pre-trial conference and trial date will be

included in the initial scheduling order. The deadlines will be determined

based on the presiding judge’s schedule, within the following general

parameters1. The parties should not provide any proposed dates for these

remaining deadlines.

a. Deadline to file pre-trial order (approximately 16 weeks after

dispositive motion deadline).

b. Deadline to file motions in limine (approximately 20-22 weeks

after dispositive motion deadline).

c. Deadline to file responses to motions in limine (approximately 22-

24 weeks after dispositive motion deadline).

d. Deadline to file an affidavit of settlement efforts (approximately

22-24 weeks after dispositive motion deadline).


11

e. Deadline to submit joint jury instructions, voir dire, verdict forms,

and trial briefs to the presiding judge (approximately 25-27 weeks

after dispositive motion deadline).

f. Pre-trial conference date (approximately 18-20 weeks after

dispositive motion deadline).

g. Trial date (approximately 27-29 weeks after dispositive motion

deadline).

9. If the general outline of proposed deadlines does not fit the circumstances of

your particular case, please provide a proposed joint schedule of deadlines

which is more appropriate for your case.

I. TRIAL

1. Has a demand for trial by jury been made?

[X] YES [ ] NO

2. Estimate the number of days that trial will require.

a. Plaintiff: 2 days (aside from any time spent selecting jury)

b. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: 2 days

c. Defendant LSU: 1 day

d. Defendant Barco: 2 days J. OTHER MATTERS

Are there any specific problems the parties wish to address at the scheduling conference?

[ ] YES [X] NO

1. If the answer is yes, please explain:

2. If the answer is no, do the parties want the court to cancel the scheduling

conference and to enter a scheduling order based on the deadlines set out


12

in this report? CHECK “NO” IF YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED

PROPOSED DEADLINES.

[X] YES [ ] NO

K. SETTLEMENT

1. Please set forth what efforts, if any, the parties have made to settle this

case to date.

a. Plaintiff: None at this time.

b. Defendants BRPD, McCreary, and Holmes: There have been no efforts to settle this case to date.

c. Defendant LSU: There have been no settlement discussions as of

this date.

d. Defendant Barco: Due to the recent addition of Barco as a party to this litigation, there has been no attempt to settle with Plaintiff. Further, there has not been sufficient discovery to have a meaningful negotiation. A settlement conference, if any, would only be beneficial after sufficient time for discovery.

2. Do the parties wish to have a settlement conference:

[ ] YES [X ] NO

3. If your answer is yes, at what stage of litigation would a settlement

conference be most beneficial?

a. Not applicable.

L. CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE You have the right to waive your right to proceed before a United States District

Judge and may instead consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate

Judge.


13

Indicate whether, at this time, all parties will agree, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),

to have a Magistrate Judge handle all the remaining pretrial aspects of this case

and preside over a jury or bench trial, with appeal lying to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

All parties agree to jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge of this court:

[ ] YES [X] NO

If your response was “yes” to the preceding question, all attorneys and

unrepresented parties should sign the attached form to indicate your

consent.

Report dated: October 12, 2016

Respectfully submitted, QUINN ALSTERBERG LLP /s/ James V. King III JULIE QUINN (#21923) JUSTIN E. ALSTERBERG (#31015) JAMES V. KING III (#36106) 855 Baronne St. New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Telephone: (504) 522-5607 Facsimile: (504) 302-9360 Counsel for Blake Huval

/s/Deelee S. Morris______________ Deelee S. Morris (#28775) Assistant Parish Attorney Tedrick K. Knightshead (#28851) First Assistant Parish Attorney 222 St. Louis Street, 9th Floor (70802) P.O. Box 1471 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 389-3114 Facsimile: (225) 389-8736


14

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Attorney for defendants, Baton Rouge Police Department through the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge, Cpl. Troy McCreary and Officer Ory Holmes TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS & PHILLIPS L.L.P. /s/ Vicki M. Crochet____________ Vicki M. Crochet, Bar # 4614 Thomas R. Peak, Bar # 14300 Katia D. Bowman, Bar # 31700 451 Florida Street, 8th Floor (70801) P.O. Box 2471 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-2471 Telephone: (225) 387-3221 Facsimile: (225) 346-8049 Attorneys for Defendant—Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural and Mechanical College /s/ Tucker F. Giles

Tucker F. Giles, T.A. #33148 Brad Brumfield, #24982 9100 Bluebonnet Centre Blvd., Ste. 300 Baton Rouge, LA 70816 (225) 923-7396 (225) 291-3308 (fax) [email protected]

Counsel for Defendant, Barco Enterprises, Inc.


15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Local Rule 5 (f), I certify that, essentially contemporaneously with

filing, copies are being served on all parties via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on or about

this 12th day of October, 2016

/s/ James V. King III
