Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IFG Port Holdings LLC v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

March 6, 2019

IFG PORT HOLDINGS, LLC.
v.
LAKE CHARLES HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT, d/b/a THE PORT OF LAKE CHARLES

          MEMORANDUM RULING

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This litigation involves a contractual dispute between IFG Port Holdings, LLC, (hereafter “IFG”) and Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, d/b/a The Port of Lake Charles, (hereafter “the Port”). Plaintiff alleges that the basis of our jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship as set forth in 2');">2');">2');">28 U.S.C.A. § 1332');">2');">2');">2. Doc. 1, p. 2');">2');">2');">2, ¶ 4.

         Before the court are five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by the Port and one Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by IFG.[1] Docs. 2');">2');">2');">280, 2');">2');">2');">285, 2');">2');">2');">286');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, 2');">2');">2');">288, 2');">2');">2');">289, 2');">2');">2');">291. Each motion is opposed. Docs. 300, 301, 302');">2');">2');">2, 303, 304, 31');">315.

         For the following reasons we conclude that the Port's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims Related to MAG Charges (doc. 2');">2');">2');">285) should be GRANTED, the Port's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Dredging Permit (doc. 2');">2');">2');">289) should be DENIED, the Port's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Costs to Elevate DMPF 3 (doc. 2');">2');">2');">288) should be DENIED, the Port's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach Of Warranty and Fraudulent Inducement Claims (doc. 2');">2');">2');">291) should be DENIED, the Port's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on LUPTA Claims (doc. 2');">2');">2');">286');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6) should be DENIED, and IFG's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on LUPTA Claims (doc. 2');">2');">2');">280) should be DENIED.

         I.

         Background and Procedural History

         This suit was initiated by a complaint filed by IFG on January 19, 2');">2');">2');">2016');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6.[2');">2');">2');">2" name="FN2');">2');">2');">2" id= "FN2');">2');">2');">2">2');">2');">2');">2] Doc. 1. The disputed contract is a Ground Lease Agreement (“the Lease”) between the parties effective August 15, 2');">2');">2');">2011. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, pp. 158-2');">2');">2');">211, [D49][3]. That Ground Lease Agreement was the end result of protracted and detailed negotiations between the two parties and stipulated the terms under which IFG would construct a grain terminal on property owned by the Port. The Lease also described certain dredging activity that was to occur in the waterway adjacent to the property being improved. Id. at p. 172');">2');">2');">2, § 8.9.

         In its Amended, Supplemental, and Restated Complaint IFG alleges multiple instances of breach of contract by the Port, violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”), fraudulent inducement or detrimental reliance, and asserts claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Doc. 2');">2');">2');">236');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6. IFG seeks monetary damages in connection with its breach of contract claims, reimbursement of sums it paid under protest, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Id. at p. 15, ¶ 2');">2');">2');">20, p. 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, ¶¶ 2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">2, 2');">2');">2');">23, p. 2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">27, p. 2');">2');">2');">27, ¶ 35, p. 2');">2');">2');">28, ¶ 2');">2');">2');">28, p. 2');">2');">2');">29, ¶ 37.

         In Answer to the Amended, Supplemental, and Restated Complaint [doc. 2');">2');">2');">254] the Port acknowledged the existence of the contract but denied or recast much of the nefarious conduct of which it was accused in the original complaint.[4] It asserts seventeen affirmative defenses to IFG's complaint. Id. at ¶¶ 38-70. The Port also asserted several counterclaims against IFG seeking declaratory relief and attorney fees and expenses incurred defending against the claims brought by IFG. Doc. 37, pp. 40-42');">2');">2');">2, ¶¶ VI-XIII, Doc. 84, pp. 14-16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, ¶¶ XIV-XVIII, Doc. 131');">31.

         A. Events leading up to the execution of the Lease

         The execution of the lease was the culmination of several years of negotiations between IFG and the Port. In order to be competitive in the market IFG expressed its desire to service large vessels known as Panamex vessels which would require a marine depth at the Port's docks to be at least 42');">2');">2');">2 feet. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">24, p. 2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6-2');">2');">2');">27 [D4].

         On January 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, 2');">2');">2');">2008, IFG and the Port executed a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) which summarized the parties' understanding of terms and conditions regarding a future lease agreement. Doc. 341, att. 1, pp. 174-76');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 [P2');">2');">2');">25]. Briefly, IFG sought to develop an export grain terminal which would service large vessels on property owned by the Port and which would be subject to a long-term lease. Id. The LOI indicates that Berth No. 8, which would be the site of the terminal, was at that time being redeveloped by the Port. Id. at p. 175. The LOI states that the water depth alongside Berth No. 8 was 37 feet when it was dredged in 2');">2');">2');">2004 and that the Port will “take reasonable steps” to work with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to deepen and maintain the depth to 40 feet or more. Id. At the time IFG understood that the USACE might not permit such deepening and it expressed its desire to work with the Port to ensure that the dredging would take place. Doc. 341, att. 1, pp. 2');">2');">2');">285-2');">2');">2');">287 [P35].

         The LOI provided that IFG would conduct a study by a licensed engineering firm to assure that its ship loader can be placed on Berth No. 8. Doc. 341, att. 5');">1 p. 175 . The study, according to the LOI, must also include that the concrete pilings beneath Berth No. 8 are at a depth sufficient to withstand dredging to at least 40 feet. Id. Other issues addressed in the LOI but not necessarily pertinent to issues herein are railroad service to the Port and IFG's right of exclusivity pertaining to the export of grain at the Port.

         The Lease, which incorporated some but not all conditions listed in the LOI, was ultimately executed by parties on August 15, 2');">2');">2');">2011.

         B. IFG Grain Terminal Facility

         Under the lease IFG was to begin construction of its facility within twelve months of the effective date of the lease (August 15, 2');">2');">2');">2011) and the facility was to be completed within twenty-four months of commencing construction. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, p. 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">68, § 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6.3 [D49]. There were several extensions of the expected completion date and the IFG facility ultimately opened on July 15, 2');">2');">2');">2015. Doc. 1, ¶ 8. This date, July 15, 2');">2');">2');">2015, is referred to as the Rent Commencement Date under the Lease. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">63');">p. 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">63 [D49]. Pursuant to Section 4 of the Lease, IFG was to begin paying rental payments, or Minimum Annual Guarantee (“MAG”) throughput charges, beginning on the Rent Commencement Date in accordance with a schedule set forth in Exhibit 3 of the Lease. Id. at pp. 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">66');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6-16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">67, 2');">2');">2');">203-2');">2');">2');">204.

         On July 31');">31, 2');">2');">2');">2016');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, the Port sent an invoice to IFG for $359, 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">67.6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">63 representing MAG charges for the first year of the lease. Doc. 341, att. 10, 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">61');">p. 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">61 [P2');">2');">2');">285]. IFG contends that pursuant to the force majeure provisions of the Lease it is not obligated to pay these MAG charges. Doc. 2');">2');">2');">236');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, pp. 18-2');">2');">2');">23, ¶¶2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6-2');">2');">2');">27. However, according to IFG, in order to mitigate damages, it paid the Port the amount invoiced plus interest under protest and sought reimbursement of this amount in its amended complaint. Doc. 341, att. 11, pp. 2');">2');">2');">257-59 [P300]. On July 31');">31, 2');">2');">2');">2017, the Port sent another invoice to IFG in the amount of $44, 958.03 representing MAG charges due for the second lease year. Doc. 341, att. 15, pp. 2');">2');">2');">29-30 [P32');">2');">2');">23]. Again IFG paid the amount due under protest and the parties, rather than file another amended pleading, entered into a stipulation providing that the court's determination regarding the MAG charges for the first year will be applied and handled in the same way for the second year MAG charges. Doc. 341, att. 15, pp. 87-91 [P32');">2');">2');">25].

         C. The Default Letter

         After the Lease was executed, the parties' attention turned to preparations for dredging. The marine area alongside Berth No. 8 needed to be at least 42');">2');">2');">2 feet in order for IFG to attract larger vessels and increase shipping traffic. The Port's 2');">2');">2');">2004 maintenance dredging permit from the USACE only allowed dredging to a depth of 37 feet. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">24, p. 1-2');">2');">2');">21 [D1]. Therefore, the permit needed to be amended. Section 8.9 of the Lease, which is the subject of much of this litigation, provides:

8.9 Dredging. [IFG] will arrange for and complete the initial dredging of the marine area alongside the Berth No. 8 Servitude Area and the vicinity connecting the Calcasieu ship channel to this area (see the map attached as Exhibit 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 which shows the specific areas to be dredged) to a depth of no less than forty-two (42');">2');">2');">2') feet below the low water line as measured at mean low Gulf tide. [IFG] will only arrange for and complete this dredging one (1) time prior to the Expected Completion Date. To offset the cost of this initial dredging the [Port] will pay [IFG] one-half of the cost of this initial dredging up to a maximum payment of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($2');">2');">2');">250, 000). The [Port] will pay [IFG] this amount immediately upon completion of the dredging and [IFG] reasonably documenting the amount paid for such dredging work and upon [IFG] giving the [Port] an invoice from the contractor performing the dredging work. [IFG] or its contractor will deposit the spoil from the initial dredging, subject to the guidelines and requirements of the United States Corps of Engineers and all applicable laws, rules and regulations, at the [Port's] dredge spoil site that is closest in proximity to the area dredged and which is available for use. The [Port] will not assess or charge [IFG] any fee for use of the [Port's] disposal sites. After this initial dredging is complete, the [Port] will at its sole cost, arrange for and complete dredging of the areas indicated in Exhibit 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 for the entire Initial and Extended Terms of the Ground Lease to ensure that the depth is maintained at forty-two (42');">2');">2');">2) feet and provide semi-annual surveys to [IFG] to show that the required depth is being maintained; provided, however, at any time the depth is forty-one (41) feet or less, the Port will promptly commence and diligently pursue the process to maintenance dredge to return the depth back to forty-two (42');">2');">2');">2) feet within a reasonable time. After the initial dredging, all future dredging and surveys of the areas indicated in Exhibit 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 will be at no cost to [IFG].

Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, p. 172');">2');">2');">2, § 8.9 [D49].

         The parties agree that IFG was to initially undertake the dredging of the area alongside Berth No. 8 with the Port reimbursing IFG one half of the cost up to $2');">2');">2');">250, 000. What the parties do not agree upon is who was to obtain the amendment to the Port's permit that would allow IFG to dredge to 42');">2');">2');">2 feet. The Port maintains that Section 8.9's language that states IFG “will arrange for and complete the initial dredging” required IFG to obtain the necessary amendment from the USACE. See generally, doc. 2');">2');">2');">293. IFG argues that it was the understanding between the parties from the beginning of negotiations that the Port was either solely responsible for securing the necessary permit or that the responsibility was shared by the Port and IFG with the Port taking the lead in working with the USACE. See generally, doc. 301. Documents in the record indicate that both prior to the effective date of the Lease and after the Port communicated with engineers, consultants, and the USACE regarding dredging or deepening of the marine area alongside Berth No. 8. See, e.g., Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">2, pp. 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">66');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6-71 [P6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">62');">2');">2');">2], Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">2, pp. 172');">2');">2');">2-73 [P6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">63], Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">2, pp. 2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">25-48 [P70-P78], Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">2, p. 2');">2');">2');">250 [P79], Doc. 341, att. 5, pp. 2');">2');">2');">29- 33 [P175-176');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6], Doc. 341, att. 5, pp. 34-39 [P177-179].

         On January 5, 2');">2');">2');">2015, IFG informed the Port that it was scheduling dredging at Berth No. 8 beginning in February. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">29 p. 95');">2');">2');">2');">29 p. 95 [D76');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6]. On January 2');">2');">2');">21, 2');">2');">2');">2015 Port officials met with the USACE to discuss, among other items, IFG's grain elevator project. Doc. 341, att. 5, pp. 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6-2');">2');">2');">20 [P171-173]. After this meeting, on January 2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, 2');">2');">2');">2015, the Port informed IFG that the USACE advised that the Port's dredging permit was not adequate for IFG's dredging project. Doc. 341, att. 5, pp. 44 [P182');">2');">2');">2]. The Port noted that it was “addressing the issue” and that it was “quickly gathering the information needed to amend the dredging permit, ” but that it would take three months at the earliest for the USACE to issue the amendment. Id.

         On March 4, 2');">2');">2');">2015, the Port, through its general counsel, sent an email detailing the process it proposed for obtaining the amendment. Doc. 345, att. 5, p. 109 [P198]. The Port informed IFG that it would apply for the amendment to its permit and IFG, at its cost, would be responsible for engaging any contractors to perform any work necessary to obtain the amendment and to perform the dredging. Id. IFG hired AECOM to perform sediment samplings required by the USACE and on July 7, 2');">2');">2');">2015, the Port informed IFG that the results of that testing gave them concern that the USACE would not allow the dredged material to be placed in its existing disposal areas. Doc. 341, att. 5, pp. 2');">2');">2');">205-06');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 [P2');">2');">2');">203]. Because of the potential expense of disposing of the dredged material in a landfill designated for contaminated material, the Port decided to contract for a second sampling and testing process which it explained would be somewhat “time consuming.” Id.

         On August 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, 2');">2');">2');">2015, counsel for IFG sent correspondence to the Port invoking the “Force Majeure” provision under the Lease.[5" name="FN5" id= "FN5">5] Doc. 341, att. 6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, p. 35 [P2');">2');">2');">217]. The letter explained that, due to the potential presence of contaminants in the dredging area, IFG was informed that the Port would not allow dredging. Id. Counsel wrote that the Port's resultant decision to undertake further testing and the ensuing delays attributed thereto were events beyond the control of IFG. Id. Further, the letter stated, since IFG's grain facility was designed to accommodate large vessels, and the dredging cannot commence, its throughput volumes would be substantially limited, an event also beyond IFG's control. Id.

         On September 30, 2');">2');">2');">2015, the Port, disagreeing that an event of “Force Majeure” had occurred, sent a letter to IFG notifying it that it was in default of Section 15.1(b) of the Lease.[6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6" name="FN6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6" id= "FN6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6][7]Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">29, pp. 134-36');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 [D85]. The Port stated that IFG was free to begin dredging the area alongside Berth No. 8 as early as January 1, 2');">2');">2');">2012');">2');">2');">2, the date of the Ground Lease Commencement Date but waited until January 2');">2');">2');">2015 to begin discussing dredging. Id. While IFG indicated that it would begin dredging in February of 2');">2');">2');">2015, the letter states, no explanation was given for IFG's failure to do so. Id. The Port further stated that IFG should have “acted expeditiously after the Ground Lease Commencement Date to move forward with dredging under the [Port's] current Corps permit and to move forward with sampling so that dredging to -42');">2');">2');">2 feet MLG could have occurred well in advance of the Expected Completion Date and the Rent Commencement Date.” Id. at p. 135. The letter noted that the “erroneous” testing results by AECOM, the contractor IFG selected, prevented amendment to the permit and, in turn, dredging. Id.

         The Port wrote that it would proceed with the permit amendment upon IFG paying the sum it incurred to disprove the AECOM results. Id. It additionally asked that IFG agree to proceed with the necessary work to amend the existing permit and to pay all costs associated with amending the existing dredging permit. Id. Finally, the letter stated that “there are no geotechnical restrictions related to the wharf and dock facilities adjacent to the area to be dredged and, upon issuance of the required Corps permit amendment allowing for dredging to a depth of -41 feet MLG, the dredging IFG is required to perform can proceed.” Id. at p. 135.

         On November 30, 2');">2');">2');">2015, counsel for IFG sent a response to the Port's letter. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">29, pp. 139-141 [D87]. The letter stated that IFG would pay for, and in fact it enclosed a check for, the sum incurred by the Port to disprove the AECOM results. Id. at p. 141. IFG also agreed to proceed with “the necessary work to amend the existing Corps permit and agrees to pay all costs associated with amending the existing dredging permit, per the Lease.” Id. at p. 139. In closing, counsel asked that the Port withdraw its September 30, 2');">2');">2');">2015 letter. Id. at p. 140.

         A January 19, 2');">2');">2');">2016');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, letter from the Port to IFG confirmed its position that IFG was in default of the lease for failing to complete the initial dredging on or before the Expected Completion Date (July 15, 2');">2');">2');">2015). Doc. 341, att. 9, pp. 134-139 [P2');">2');">2');">270]. IFG filed this lawsuit on January 2');">2');">2');">29, 2');">2');">2');">2016');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6. Doc. 1.

         IFG and the Port entered into a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (“CEA”) on February 15, 2');">2');">2');">2016');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 whereby the parties agreed to use the Port's 2');">2');">2');">214 agreement with the USACE to expedite the USACE's review of the Port's permit amendment. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">29, pp. 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">64-172');">2');">2');">2 [D91]. The CEA provided that the Port, at IFG's cost, would agree to obtain the necessary permit for dredging. Id. On March 14, 2');">2');">2');">2016');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, the Port submitted the application to the USACE to amend its permit to allow for dredging to a depth of 42');">2');">2');">2 feet. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">29, pp. 176');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6-78 [D93]. On the same date counsel for the Port issued a letter stating that it understands that IFG cannot take any action relating to dredging until the USACE approves the application. Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">29, pp. 179-81 [D94]. It also informed IFG that it had “no intention and shall not issue the second notice of default pursuant to Section 15.3 of the Lease at this time or hereafter so long as IFG continues to work diligently in arranging for and completing the Initial Dredging.” Id. at p. 180.

         On February 16');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, 2');">2');">2');">2017, the USACE issued its permit modification letter to the Port's existing maintenance permit to allow IFG to dredge to a depth of 42');">2');">2');">2 feet. Doc. 341, att. 31');">31, pp. 96');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6-102');">2');">2');">2 [D107]. The USACE also determined that Dredged Material Placement Facility (“DMPF”) 3 was the site that could be used to dispose of the dredge material. Doc. 341, att. 31');">31, pp. 91-95 [D106');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6].

         D. DMPF 3 Containment Dikes

         Section 8.9 of the Lease provides, in pertinent part,

[IFG] or its contractor will deposit the spoil from the initial dredging, subject to the guidelines and requirements of the United States Corps of Engineers and all applicable laws, rules and regulations, at the [Port's] dredge spoil site that is closest in proximity to the area dredged and which is available for use. The [Port] will not assess or charge [IFG] any fee for use of the [Port's] disposal sites.

Doc. 341, att. 2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">2');">2');">2');">26');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6, p. 172');">2');">2');">2, § 8.9 [D49]. In a February 7, 2');">2');">2');">2017 letter from the USACE to the Port the USACE determined that, as a condition for approval of the permit modification, the containment dikes at DMPF 3 had to be expanded, elevated, and/or built-up in order to handle the dredge material from Berth No.8. Doc. 341, att. 31');">31, pp. 91-95 [D106');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6]. The USACE proposed two options to undertake the raising of the dikes. Id. The first option allowed the “requester” to utilize the dredging contractor that was already performing maintenance work at the disposal site on behalf of the USACE. Id. The second option allowed the “requester” to choose its own dredging contractor, but work could not begin until after the USACE's maintenance was complete. Id.

         IFG's dredging consultant notified the Port by correspondence dated February 2');">2');">2');">20, 2');">2');">2');">2017, of its plan to proceed with dredging and noted, “[a]fter the Port has notified IFG that DMPF 3 is available to receive dredge material from Berth 8 deepening, IFG will give the selected dredging contractor notice to proceed.” Doc. 341, att. 11, pp. 2');">2');">2');">289-90 [P303]. In response to this letter the Port wrote on February 2');">2');">2');">23, 2');">2');">2');">2017 that the “obligation to complete the dredging and disposal work … lies with IFG. …” Doc. 341, att. 11, p. 2');">2');">2');">293 [P304]. The Port stated that option one or two was a decision for IFG to make and IFG would be responsible for all costs associated with raising the containment dikes at DMPF 3. Id.

         On March 17, 2');">2');">2');">2017, IFG informed the Port that, while it disagreed with the Port's demands, “in the interest of moving forward as quickly as possible” the Port was authorized by IFG to work with the USACE to perform the dike work. Doc. 341, att. 31');">31, p. 106');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6');">6 [D110]. IFG also informed the Port that it agreed to pay for the work.[8] Id.

         The USACE informed IFG that the work to expand the DMPF 3 containment dikes was completed on June 2');">2');">2');">20, 2');">2');">2');">2017. Doc. 341, att. 31');">31, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.