Date: 10-29-2015

Case Style: Jerome Cha v. 357 Incorporated d/b/a Reco Enterprises ADBA Reco Construction Co., et al.

Case Number: CJ-2008-6505

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jim Tilly

Defendant's Attorney: Bob Applegate for Chandler Materials Company and Bill Martin

Don Danz for Gelongia Consultants, David L. Belongia, Bebee Engineering, Inc., Ron Bebee, Phillips Slaughter Rose, Inc.

Steve Harris and Max Harris for Danny R. Mitchell Architect, P.C. and Danny Mitchell

Mike Keester for Phillips Slaughter Rose, Inc.

John Paul for 357 Incorporated

Cori Powell for Ron Beebee and Bebee Engineering, Inc.

Bruce Powers for 357 Incorporated and Tulsa Tie Scaping, Inc.

Jim Secrest for Chandler Materials Company

Gerald Stamper for Ron Bebee and Bebee Engineering

Description: Tulsa, OK - Jerome Cha sued 357 Incorporated d/b/a Reco Enterprises ADBA Reco Construction Co.,Phillips Slaughter Rose, Inc., Paul M. Rose, Danny R. Mitchell Architect, P.C., Danny R. Mitchell, Tulsa Tie Scaping, Inc.,Belongia Consultants, Inc., David L. Belongia, Chandler Materials Company, Bill Martin, Bebee Engineering and Ron Bebee on breach of contract, professional negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The pre-trial order entered by the court provided, in part, as follows:

The plaintiff, Jerome Cha (“Cha”), is a dentist who does business under the name “Tulsa Cosmetic Dental Center”. Cha filed this action on September 12, 2008 against the following design professionals and contractors who were involved in various aspects of the design or the construction of a professional office building for Cha in Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Danny R. Mitchell Architect, P.C. (“Mitchell Architects” or “Mitchell P.C.”), was the architectural firm hired to design the building.2 Danny R. Mitchell (“Danny Mitchell” or “Mitchell”) is the principal of Mitchell P.C., and is a licensed architect.
Phillips Slaughter Rose, Inc. (“PSR”), is a local engineering firm which Mitchell hired to provide certain described and limited structural engineering consulting services on the project. Paul M. Rose (“Rose”), is a principal of PSR, and is a registered professional engineer.
357 Incorporated, d/b/a RECO Enterprises, also doing business as RECO Construction Company (“RECO”) was the general contractor for the project.
Belongia Consultants, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation (“BCI”), is a Geotechnical Engineering firm, and David L. Belongia (“Belongia”), an individual, is a licensed engineer and principal of BCI. Belongia conducted soil tests on the project site, and submitted geotechnical reports that contained his findings and recommendations.
Tulsa Tie-Scaping, Inc. (“TTSI”), is an Oklahoma corporation that sold and installed a Versa-Lok brand segmental retaining wall on the project.
Chandler Materials Company (“Chandler”), is an Oklahoma corporation which sold the
Versa-Lok retaining wall to TTSI. Bill Martin (“Martin”), an individual, is an employee of
Chandler. Martin is a registered engineer, and designed the Versa-Lok retaining wall that
Chandler sold to TTSI for construction on the project.
Bebee Engineering, Inc. (“BEI”), an Oklahoma professional corporation, is an engineering firm, and Ron Bebee (“Bebee”), an individual, is a licensed engineer and principal of BEI who provided structural engineering services related to the Versa-Lok wall.
b. Procedural History
Cha Contends:
Cha’s Petition asserts four legal theories of recovery against all defendants: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Breach of Implied Warranty, and (4) Negligence. On December 8, 2010, the Court granted the Motions for Summary Judgment to Mitchell, Belongia, and Bebee on all causes of action. On May 13, 2011, the Court granted Cha’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of its December 8, 2010 order granting sunm-iary judgment to Mitchell, Belongia, and Bebee, and vacated that portion of the December 8, 2010 order which granted summary judgment to Mitchell, Belongia, and Bebee on Cha’s negligence claims, and denied summary judgment to Mitchell, Belongia, and Bebee on Cha’s negligence claims.
On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order staying this action until such time as Cha’s dispute with RECO was resolved through binding arbitration, or until such time as the parties present evidence that they have waived, in writing, the currently binding arbitration process. Accordingly, Cha submitted his claims against RECO for binding arbitration by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The AAA arbitration was conducted on March 4-6, 2013. On April 30, 2013, the arbitration panel found that RECO properly complied with its contractual obligations to Cha, and was not in any manner negligent, and denied recovery to Cha in the arbitration proceeding. The Court confirmed the arbitration award by order dated May 31, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered judgment for RECO and against Cha in accordance with the arbitration award.3
On January 21, 2014, Cha voluntarily dismissed his claims against BCI and Belongia. On January 31, 2014, Cha voluntarily dismissed his claims against Chandler, Martin, Bebee, BET, and TTSI. The only claims remaining herein are Cha’ s claims against Mitchell, Mitchell P.C., Rose, and PSR. Cha will voluntarily dismiss his breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of implied warranty claims against Rose, individually.
Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell Contend:
On March 14, 2002, Mitchell P.C. provided Cha a proposal to perform specified and limited services associated with an office building. The proposal also specified duties and responsibilities that were the sole duty and exclusive responsibility of Cha. The proposal was approved and accepted by Cha on March 27, 2002. It outlined the limited basic services Mitchell P.C. would provide and stated Cha was responsible for obtaining (and Mitchell P.C. could rely on the accuracy and completeness of): a legal description and land survey of property; services of a Civil Engineer to provide grading and drainage plans and other information necessary to secure approval of governing authorities; services of a soils and materials engineer with reports and professional recommendations; laboratory tests, inspections and reports as required by the specifications and governing authorities; and a topographical survey of the property. Concerning any duty to oversee the project, the proposal stated Mitchell P.C. would make site visits as required to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work.
Cha and RECO executed a written agreement dated March 20, 2003 for RECO to serve as the general contractor for the project. The agreement between Cha and RECO included value engineering and a versalok wall substitution. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell were not responsible for designing the versalok wall.4 Cha began to experience problems with the building due to the wrong soil being used beneath the building and water infiltrating the property, neither of which are the responsibility of Mitchell P.C., or Mitchell.5 Cha and RECO failed to follow the requirements and recommendations of Cha’s soils engineer (Belongia). It was this failure coupled with massive water leaks that caused damage to the building. Cha was negligent in failing to detect the presence of water leaking from the plumbing (both water and sewer) and failing to timely repair the leaks.
Cha filed suit against RECO, TTSI, Chandler, Martin, BET, Bebee, PSR, Rose, Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell. Cha asserted four claims against each of these parties: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of implied warranty, and (4) negligence. Upon Mitchell’s motion, the Court dismissed each claim with prejudice against Mitchell. Later, the Court reinstated the negligence claim against Mitchell. All 4 claims remain pending against Mitchell P.C.
At the request of Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell, the Court ordered Cha and RECO to arbitrate their claims. Following the arbitration, Cha dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants, except against Mitchell P.C., Mitchell, PSR and Rose.
3. Plaintiffs Contentions:
A. List All Theories of Recovery and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon.
No.
Theories of Recovery
Applicable Statute, Ordinance, Common Law Rule
Relied Upon
1.
Breach of Contract
Common law, OKLA. STAT. tit. 23, § 21; OUJI-Civil, Chapter
23.
2.
Breach of Duty of
Good Faith and Fair
Dealing
Wathor v. Mut. Assurance Adm’rs, Inc., 87 P.3d 559, 561, 2004 OK 2, ¶ 5.
3.
Breach of Implied Warranty
Keel v. Titan Const. Corp., 639 P.2d 1228, 1981 OK 148;
McCool v. Hoover Equipment Co., 415 P.2d 954; 1966 OK 95;
Miller v. Guy H. James Const. Co., 653 P.2d 221, 1982 OK
CIV APP 34; OUJI-CIV 23.15A
4.
Negligence
OKLA. STAT. tit. 23, § 61; OKLA. STAT. tit. 76, § 1. Boren v.
Thompson & Assoc., 999 P.2d 438, 2000 OK 3; OUJI-Civil,
Chapter 14; OKLA. ADMTN. CODE § 55:10-15-6 & 245:15-23-
5.
B. List Damages or Relief Sought.
Lost rental revenue on TLC lease
$894,576.00
Lost rental on unfinished suite
$1,149,989.00
Loss of value of building
$1,030,000.00
Repair of foundation
$896,020.00
Repair of building
$216,900.00
Total Damages
$4,187,485.00
[Note: The lost rental revenue numbers are current as of4-17-2015. The loss of value and repair numbers are current as of the arbitration proceeding in 2013, and are in the process of being updated. The updated calculations will be provided prior to the close of fact discovery. Cha reserves the right to update all damages calculations prior to trial to reflect the increase in damages that are ongoing.]6
4. Defendant’s Contentions:
List All Theories of Defense and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon.
A. Defenses of PSR and Rose.
No.
Defenses
pplicable Statute or Common Law Rule
Plaintiffs claims and damages are barred by the statute of limitations.
Okia. Stat. tit. 12, § 95
Plaintiffs claims and damages are barred by the doctrine of laches.
Common Law, including Smith v. The Baptist Foundation of Oklahoma, 50 P.3d 1132 (Okia. 2002)
Plaintiffs claims and damages result from the breach of contract and!or negligence of others (and not PSR/Rose) andlor natural events, Acts of God, unavoidable casualty, or unanticipated events outside the control of PSR/Rose; No causation.
Common Law; OUJI—Chapter Nine
Plaintiffs breach of contract claim against Rose is barred as no contractual relationship exists between Plaintiff and Rose.
Okia. Stat. tit. 15, § § 2 and 51 and Common Law, including Watkins v. Grady County Soil and Water Conservation Dist., 438 P.2d 491 (Okla. 1968); OUJI— Chapter Twenty-Three
Plaintiffs breach of contract claim against PSR is barred as no contractual relationship exists between Plaintiff and
PSR.
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 2 and 51 and Common Law, including Watkins v. Grady County Soil and Water Conservation Dist., 438 P.2d 491 (Okla. 1968); OUJI— Chapter Twenty-Three
Plaintiff, through his actions, including the decision to utilize the Segmental Retaining Wall designed by Bill MartinlChandler is estopped from asserting claims against PSR!Cha.
Common Law, including Sullivan v. Buckhorn Ranch
Partnership, 119 P.3d 192 (Okla. 2005); OUJI—Chapter
Twenty-Three
No.
Defenses
Applicable Statute or Common Law Rule
Plaintiff assumed the risk of the Segmental Retaining Wall designed by Bill Martin/Chandler and damages, and as a result is barred from pursuing claims against PSRICha.
Common Law, including Davis v. Whitsett, 435 P.2d 592 (Okla. 1967); OUJI—Chapter Nine
Plaintiff, through his actions, including the decision to utilize the Segmental Retaining Wall designed by Bill Martin/Chandler, is barred from asserting claims against PSR/Cha based on the doctrines of waiver and excuse.
Common Law, including Barringer v. Baptist Healthcare of Oklahoma, 22 P.3d 695 (Okla. 2001); OUJI—Chapter Twenty-Three
Plaintiffs claims and damages resulted from Plaintiffs own negligence/contributory negligence.
Okia. Stat. tit. 23, § 13 and 14; OUJI—Chapter Nine
PSR/Rose did not breach any contractual obligations or act negligently, and, to the extent it did, any such action or breach did not result in any harm or damage to Plaintiff.
Common Law, including Digital Design Group, Inc. v.
Information Builders, Inc., 24 P.3d 834 (Okla. 2001);
OUJI—Chapter Nine and Chapter Twenty-Three
PSR/Rose exercised due and reasonable care in accordance with the applicable standard of care and did not breach any duty owed Plaintiff.
Common Law, including Meyer v. Moore, 329 P.2d 676 (Okla. 1958); OUJI—Chapter Nine
The actions/inactions of
PSR/Rose did not result in
any harm or damage to
Plaintiff.
Common Law, including Duncan Bros. v. Robinson, 294 P.2d 822 (Okla. 1956)
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.
Common Law, including Smith-Horton Drilling Co. v.
Brooks, 182 P.2d 499 (Okla. 1947); OUJI—Chapter
Twenty Three, Chapter Four, and Chapter Five
No.
Defenses
pplicable Statute or Common Law Rule
PSR/Rose did not owe Plaintiff any “duty of good faith and fair dealing;” No privity of contract
Common Law; OUJI—Chapter Twenty-Three
PSRJRose did not provide Plaintiff any “implied warranty” nor sell Plaintiff any good; No privity of contract
Common Law; OUJI—Chapter Twenty-Three
Plaintiff’s claims and damages are barred by ratification, acceptance, acquiescence, and consent
Common Law; OUJI—Chapter Twenty-Three
Mitchell and Mitchell P.C. Contend:
Mitchell caused Plaintiffs claims 1-3 that were alleged against Mitchell to be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs sole claim pending against Mitchell is a claim for negligence. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell dispute Plaintiffs damages, and affirmatively state Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from either Mitchell P.C. and/or Mitchell. Any damages incurred by Plaintiff were not caused by Mitchell P.C. and/or Mitchell.
Mitchell and Mitchell P.C.’s Objections to Plaintiffs Theories ocoyçy
1. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each deny Plaintiffs claims. Common Law.
2. Mitchell P.C. denies it breached any contract with Cha. Mitchell P.C. performed all its obligations under the contract with Cha.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
3. Mitchell P.C. denies it breached any duty of good faith and fair dealing. Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
4. Mitchell P.C. denies it breached any warranties, implied or otherwise. Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
5. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell both deny Cha’s negligence claim. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell acted in a reasonably prudent manner at all times.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 9.
6. The building’s issues were caused by incorrect fill being used, and by water infiltrating the property. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell had no responsibility regarding the selection of fill material or to monitor for plumbing leaks. The original tests of the soils showed the need to change the character of fill beneath the building and that no subsurface water was detected. After construction, the tests revealed water in the soil. Although Cha knew or should have known the building had water and/or sewer leaks (because the records show Cha was using water far in excess of what would be ordinary for the building’s size and occupancy and Cha had reported to the City of Tulsa that water was gushing and bubbling out of the ground), Cha did not
disclose this information to Mitchell P.C. or Mitchell (or anyone else) when the source of the water was being investigated (including questioning Cha about his sprinkler system use), all in the process of determining the source of water that was causing the floor or slab of the building to heave. Common Law.
7. In the March 13, 2002 proposal which was agreed to and accepted by Cha on March 27, 2002, Cha agreed it was his responsibility for and that Mitchell P.C. could rely on the accuracy and completeness of: (i) a legal description and land survey of the property, (ii) the services of a Civil Engineer to provide grading and drainage plans and other information necessary to secure approval of governing authorities relative to such matters; (iii) the services of a soils and materials engineer with reports and professional recommendations; (iv) laboratory tests, inspections and reports as required by the specifications and governing authorities; and (v) a topographical survey of the property.
Common Law. See proposal. OUJI Chapter 23.
8. RECO was responsible for the construction of the property. Mitchell P.C. had limited construction administration duties consisting of: (i) site visits as required to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work (but was not required to test for the correctness of the fill material); (ii) processing shop drawings and other Contractor submittals; (iii) issuing supplemental instructions necessary for plan interpretation; (iv) verification and processing of the Contractor’s monthly application for payment; and (v) preparing a punch list with Cha and the issuing of a certificate of substantial completion.
Common Law. See proposal. OUJI Chapter 23.
9. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell were not responsible for, nor had anything to do with, the design or construction of the versalok segmental retaining wall. This was RECO’s responsibility as shown in the contract entered into by Cha and RECO.
Common Law. See contract. OUJI Chapter 23.
10. All actions and/or omissions of Mitchell were in his capacity as a disclosed agent of Mitchell P.C.
Common Law. OUJI Chapters 6, 23.
Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell’s Affirmative Defenses
1. Cha failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action nor a claim for
which relief can be granted.
Common Law. 12 O.S. §2012(b)(6). Tufft’s, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2009 OK 4, ¶ 6, 212
P.3d 1158, 1162-63. Richardson, Richardson & Boudreaux, PLCC v. Morrissey, 2012 OK 52,
¶ 4, 283 P.3d 308, 309.
2. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel and/or equitable estoppel.
Common Law. Sullivan v. Buckhorn Ranch Phip, 2005 OK 41, ¶ 30, 119 P.3d 192.
3. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver. Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
4. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of ratification. Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
5. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches. Common Law. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Carl E. Gungoil Exploration, Inc., 2005 OK CIV APP 45, ¶ 7, 116 P.3d 213, 216 citing Smith v. The Baptist Foundation of Oklahoma, 2002 OK 57, ¶ 9, 50 P.3d 1132, 1138.
6. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. Common Law. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. US. ex rel. Internal Revenue Serv., 2006 OK CIV APP 45, ¶ 19, 134 P.3d 913, 917. Pub. Serv. Co. of Oklahoma v. Duncan Pub. Utilities Auth., 2011 OK CIV APP 15, ¶ 15, 248 P.3d 400, 403.
7. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the Statute of Limitations. Common Law. 12 O.S. § 95.
8. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the Economic Loss Doctrine. Common Law. Waggoner v. Town & Country Mobile Homes, Inc., 1990 OK 139, 808 P.2d 649,
653. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., 1992 OK 108, 834 P.2d 980, 982.
9. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege they owed no duty outside of the proposal accepted by Cha. Mitchell denies being a party to any contract with Cha, but if the Court or jury determines otherwise, Mitchell’s duties are limited by the proposal.
Common Law. OUJI Chapters 9, 23.
10. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege they did not breach any duty owed Cha. Common Law. OUJI Chapters 9, 23.
11. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege that said injuries, if any, sustained by Cha were wholly caused by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell, and said negligence is imputed to Cha by reason of the relationship of said other parties to Cha.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 9.
12. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege they were not the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any of the losses alleged by Cha.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 9.
13. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege that said injuries, if any, alleged by Cha were solely and proximately caused by superseding and intervening causes other than the acts or omissions of Mitchell P.C. andlor Mitchell.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 9.
14. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege that said injuries, if any, alleged by Cha were caused by an act of God or other natural causes beyond the control of, and not necessarily foreseeable by Mitchell P.C. andlor Mitchell.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 9.
15. There was no contract between Cha and Mitchell. Common Law. OUJI Chapters 6, 23.
16. All actions or omissions of Mitchell were undertaken in his capacity as an agent of Mitchell P.C.
Common Law. OUJI Chapters 6, 23.
17. Cha failed to mitigate his alleged damages.
Common Law. OUJI Chapters 4, 5, 23. Smith-Horton Drilling v. Brooks, 182 P.2d 499 (Okla. 1947).
18. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or part by the documents entered into by Cha and/or which are binding on Cha.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
19. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs failure to satisfy and/or
exhaust conditions precedent.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
20. Cha’s damages, if any, are limited to the dollar amount of the Basic Fee stated in the proposal.
Common Law. OUJI Chapters 4, 5, 23.
21. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege Cha has an obligation to indemnify them. Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
22. Cha’s claims and causes of action are barred by acceptance, acquiescence and consent.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 23.
23. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege that to the extent either or both are
determined to be liable (they each deny any wrongdoing), they each are entitled to a right of contribution against Cha.
Common Law. OUJI Chapters 9, 23. 23 O.S. § 13, 14, 15. 12 O.S. § 832.
24. Any alleged negligence of the defendants (disputed) is exceeded by the negligence of Cha (comparative negligence).
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 9. 23 O.S. § 13, 14, 15. 12 O.S. § 832.
25. Cha’s claims and any potential recovery are barred in whole or in part by his own negligence.
Common Law. OUJI Chapter 9. 23 O.S. § 13, 14, 15. 12 O.S. § 832.
26. Cha’s claims are barred in whole or in part by assumption of the risk. Common Law. Davis v. Whitsett, 435 P.2d 592 (Okia. 1967). OUJI Chapter 9.
27. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell’s potential liability is limited by 23 0.5. § 13, 14, 15 and 12 O.S. § 832.
28. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each allege all available defenses.
29. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each reserve their right to add defenses and/or other theories as needed.
5. Defendants’s Claims for Relief:
List Any Claims of Relief Sought (By Cross-Claim, Counterclaim, or Set-Off), and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon.
Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell seek judgment in their favor on each of Plaintiffs claims, and that Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell each be awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell, as well as PSR and Rose allege in the alternative, that if judgment is entered against either or all of them, they are entitled to a right of contribution against Cha. Cha’s claims and potential recovery must be reduced by the amount paid or stipulated in his various settlement agreements with others, and by those agreements that affect Cha. Further, Cha’s claims and potential recovery are barred based on his own negligence, or must be reduced and limited by the percentage share of Cha’s own negligence as well as negligence of RECO and other subcontractors.. 23 O.S. § 13,14, 15. 12 0.S. § 832. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell’s, as well as PSR and Rose’s potential liability is limited by 23 O.S. § 13, 14, 15 and 12 O.S. § 832 and any other applicable authority. Mitchell P.C. and Mitchell seek all favorable relief either or both is entitled to.
* * *

Outcome: Issue # 1. Issue: BREACH OF AGREEMENT - CONTRACT (CONTRACT)
Filed By: CHA, JEROME
Filed Date: 09/12/2008
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: PHILLIPS SLAUGHTER ROSE INC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 06/25/2013. Other
Defendant: ROSE, PAUL M Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Issue # 2. Issue: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (PROFNEG)
Filed By: CHA, JEROME
Filed Date: 09/12/2008
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: PHILLIPS SLAUGHTER ROSE INC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 06/25/2013. Other
Defendant: ROSE, PAUL M Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/21/2014. Other
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Issue # 3. Issue: BREACHED OF IMPLIED WARRANTY (OTHER)
Filed By: CHA, JEROME
Filed Date: 09/12/2008
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: PHILLIPS SLAUGHTER ROSE INC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 06/25/2013. Other
Defendant: ROSE, PAUL M Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/21/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/21/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Issue # 4. Issue: BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS (OTHER)
Filed By: CHA, JEROME
Filed Date: 09/12/2008
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: PHILLIPS SLAUGHTER ROSE INC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 06/25/2013. Other
Defendant: ROSE, PAUL M Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/21/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/21/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/14/2013. Other
Issue # 5. Issue: CROSSCLAIM - INDEMNIFICATION (OTHER)
Filed By: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC
Filed Date: 11/13/2008
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 06/25/2013. Other
Issue # 6. Issue: CROSSCLAIM - CONTRIBUTION & INDEMNIFICATION (OTHER)
Filed By: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY
Filed Date: 11/19/2008
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 06/25/2013. Other
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 03/06/2012. Judge
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: VACATED (ORDER OR JUDGMENT), 04/03/2012. Judge
Issue # 7. Issue: CROSSCLAIM - CONTRIBUTION & INDEMNIFICATION (OTHER)
Filed By: MARTIN, BILL
Filed Date: 11/19/2008
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 06/25/2013. Other
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ENTERED, 03/06/2012. Judge
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: VACATED (ORDER OR JUDGMENT), 04/03/2012. Judge
Issue # 8. Issue: CROSSCLAIM #1 - CONTRIBUTION & INDEMNIFICATION (OTHER)
Filed By: PHILLIPS SLAUGHTER ROSE INC
Filed Date: 08/30/2013
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Issue # 9. Issue: CROSSCLAIM #1- CONTRIBUTION & INDEMNIFICATION (OTHER)
Filed By: ROSE, PAUL M
Filed Date: 08/30/2013
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Other
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Issue # 10. Issue: CROSSCLAIM #2 - NEGLIGENCE (NEGL)
Filed By: PHILLIPS SLAUGHTER ROSE INC
Filed Date: 08/30/2013
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 11. Issue: CROSSCLAIM #2 - NEGLIGENCE (NEGL)
Filed By: ROSE, PAUL M
Filed Date: 08/30/2013
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CHANDLER MATERIALS COMPANY Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: TULSA TIE SCAPING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: MITCHELL, DANNY R Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: BELONGIA CONSULTANTS INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: BELONGIA, DAVID L Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: MARTIN, BILL Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: BEBEE ENGINEERING INC Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Defendant: BEBEE, RON Disposed: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 01/31/2014.
Issue # 12. Issue: CROSS CLAIM #1 - INDEMNITY (OTHER)
Filed By: DANNY R MITCHELL ARCHITECT PC
Filed Date: 10/09/2013
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: 357 INCORPORATED Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 10/29/2015. Dismissed- Settled

Plaintiff's Experts: Thomas E. Trabue, P.E; Allen Minsk, P.E.M.; Brian Marick, P.E.; Bob Fitzgerald, CPA; Brad Cole

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: