ACCEPTED 01-14-00317-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/28/2015 4:31:00 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK
01-14-00317-CV FILED IN In the 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS First Court of Appeals 1/28/2015 4:31:00 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Houston, Texas Clerk
Pelco Construction, Co. Appellant, v. Chambers County, Texas, Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting, Inc. Appellees.
On Appeal from the 334th Judicial District Court Chambers County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV26356
Appellee’s Brief
Mills Shirley L.L.P. 2228 Mechanic St., Ste. 400 Galveston, Texas 77550 409.761.4001
Robert E. Booth Texas Bar No. 24040546 rbooth@millsshirley.com
Attorney for Appellees Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting, Inc.
Oral Argument Requested IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellate Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Pelco Construction Company:
Appellate Counsel:
Daryl L. Moore Texas Bar No. 14327420 daryl@heightslaw.com Daryl L. Moore, P.C. 1005 Heights Boulevard Houston, Texas 77008 713.529.0048
Trial Counsel:
Fredrick L. McGuire Texas Bar No.24001190 rickmcguire@rickmcguire.com Etta Davidson Texas Bar No. 07495750 etta@rickmcguire.com Law Office of Frederick L. McGuire 714 Main Street Liberty, Texas 77575 936.336.9809
-i- Defendant/Third-party plaintiff/Appellee
Chambers County, Texas
Trial and Appellant Counsel:
Nathan M. Brandimarte Texas Bar No. 24026915 nmb@obt.com James H. Chesnutt Texas Bar No. 04187500 jhc@obt.com Robert L. Florance Texas Bar No. 24087520 rflorance@obt.com Orgain, Bell & Tucker, LLP 470 Orleans Street Beaumont, Texas 77701 409.838.6412
- ii - Defendants/Appellees
Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting, Inc.
Counsel at trial:
Jack C. Brock Texas Bar No. 03040800 jbrock@millsshirley.com Robert E. Booth Texas Bar No. 24040546 rbooth@millshirley.com Mills Shirley L.L.P. 2228 Mechanic St., Ste. 400 Galveston, Texas 77550 409.763.2341
Counsel on appeal:
Robert E. Booth Texas Bar No. 24040546 rbooth@millsshirley.com Mills Shirley L.L.P. 2228 Mechanic St., Ste. 400 Galveston, Texas 77550 409.761.4001
- iii - TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel ..................................................................... i
Table of Contents ....................................................................................... iv
Index of Authorities ................................................................................... vi
Statement of the Case .................................................................................. 1
Issues Presented ........................................................................................... 2
Responsive Statement of Facts ..................................................................... 2
A. Chambers County contracts with Dannenbaum to design the Oaks Island Fire Station. ................................................................ 3
B. Dannenbaum contracts with Amundson Consulting for staff support services. ............................................................................ 3
C. Chambers County moves forward to the construction phase of the Project. .................................................................................... 4
D. Pelco Construction submits a winning bid and contracts directly with Chambers County...................................................... 5
E. The Project construction begins. ..................................................... 5
F. Chambers County temporarily suspends the Project at its discretion. ...................................................................................... 6
G. The course of proceedings at the trial court. ................................... 6
Summary of Argument ................................................................................ 9
Argument and Authorities ........................................................................... 9
- iv - 1. The Standard of Review ..................................................................... 9
2. Kurt Amundson cannot be individually liable to Pelco because he provided services to Chambers County and the Project under Amundson Consulting’s contract with Dannenbaum Engineering. ...... 9
3. Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting cannot be liable to Pelco for misrepresentations as a matter of law. ................................ 13
A. Pelco appeals claims arising from the pre-bid conference and abandons claims arising from the suspension of work. ................. 13
B. Pelco cannot justifiably rely on pre-contract oral statements regarding FEMA funding because its contract with Chambers County does not provide that payments are contingent upon FEMA reimbursement. ................................................................. 14
C. Amundson established that his statements could have been fraud because the dispute regarding reimbursement arose after the pre-bid conference. ................................................................. 16
D. If the Court correct granted summary judgment for Chambers County, than Pelco cannot maintain claims against Amundson because Pelco’s improper termination of the contract is the proximate cause of its damages. ................................................... 16
Conclusion and Prayer............................................................................... 17
-v- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases
DeClaire v. G & B Mcintosh Family Ltd. P’ship, 260 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App. —Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) ........................................................ 15
Dew v. Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. 2006). .................. 18
Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46-48 (Tex. 1998). .......................................................... 10
Gulf Liquids New River Project, LLC v. Gulsby Eng'g, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st District] 2011, no pet.) ........................... 17
H2O Solutions, Ltd. v. PM Realty Grp., LP, 438 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014), reh'g overruled (Aug. 14, 2014), review denied (Jan. 16, 2015). .......................................................................... 15
IKON Office Solutions, Inc. v. Eifert, 125 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied ............................................................ 16
In re HRM Holdings, LLC, 421 B.R. 244 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009 ..................... 11
Menetti v. Chavers, 974 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). ............................................................................................................ 10
Ocram, Inc. v. Bartosh, 2012 WL 4740859 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 4, 2012) .......................................................................................... 11
Rutherford v. Atwood, No. 01-00-0113-CV, 2003 WL 22053687 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2003, no pet). ................................. 12
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.2005). ........................... 9
Statutes
TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE § 21.223...................................................................... 10, 11
- vi - Statement of the Case
Appellee agrees with the statement of case presented by Appellee
Chambers County, Texas with the following additions:
Nature of the Suit Pelco sued Kurt Amundson and his wife Margie Amundsen1 in their individual capacities, and Amundson Consulting, Inc. for fraud, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. 4CR1035; 7CR4075- 4077.
Pretrial Proceedings Margie Amundsen filed a special appearance and was subsequently nonsuited from the lawsuit by Pelco without a hearing. 3CR1713. Kurt Amundson moved for summary judgment regarding his individual liability and Amundson Consulting moved for summary judgment based upon the economic loss doctrine. 6CR3798-3817. At hearing the trial court stated it was prepared to grant summary judgment in favor of Kurt Amundson individually, but wanted to defer the defense economic loss as to Amundson Consulting and enter an order consistent with the other rulings in favor of Chambers County. 3RR63- 64. Amundson passed the hearing and subsequently filed another summary judgment on Pelco’s claims. 7CR4259. The trial court then granted a single take- nothing summary judgment in favor of Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting. 7CR4581. This summary judgment order was merged into the final judgment. 8CR4934.
1 This is the correct spelling; Margie J. Amundsen retains her maiden name. To The Honorable First Court of Appeals:
Appellees Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting, Inc., submit this
opening brief and request the Court affirm the orders of the trial court order
of summary judgment against Appellant’s claims.2
Issues Presented
Reply to Issue IV. The trial court correctly granted the motion for
summary judgment because there can be no liability against Kurt Amundson
individually and Pelco’s claims against Amundson Consulting fail as a matter
of law.
Responsive Statement of Facts
Hurricane Ike struck the upper Texas coast causing damage to the
Chambers County Oak Island Volunteer Fire Station. The Federal
Government allocated funding to reimburse Chambers County to rebuild.
FEMA administered this funding.
2 References to the Clerk’s Record will be [Volume] CR [page] and SCR [page]. References to the Reporter’s Record will be RR [page].
2 A. Chambers County contracts with Dannenbaum to design the Oaks Island Fire Station.
Dannenbaum entered into the Master Services Agreement (the “MSA”)
with Chambers County to rebuild the Oak Island Fire Station (the
“Project”). 3CR1608-1622.
For purposes of the Project, Alan Hirshman and architect Steven
McGarraugh provided services to Engineering Company – Houston, LLC in
their capacities as design professionals for Dannenbaum Engineering
Corporation. 3CR1567; see also 6RR150.
The MSA provided for two phases. 3CR1608-1622. Phase I consisted
of assessment and design and Phase II involved the construction and contract
management. See id.
B. Dannenbaum contracts with Amundson Consulting for staff support services.
For 28 years, Kurt Amundson has assisted local governments in
obtaining and implementing FEMA public assistance to complete projects to
repair damages sustained from disasters. 3CR1568; 3CR1585-1587.
Amundson and his wife Margie Amundsen own Amundson Consulting
which is the company Amundson uses to conduct business. Id.
Amundson Consulting entered into a Staff Support Agreement with
Dannenbaum whereby Amundson Consulting provided “technical support
3 personnel … to work under the supervision, direction and control of
Engineer.” 3CR1624-1627.
For his work under this agreement, Kurt Amundson used the email
address “kurt.amundson@dannenbaum.com” and identified himself to
Chambers County and Pelco as working for Dannenbaum. 3CR1568. Kurt
Amundson did not use his company’s name in dealing with Chambers
County or Pelco. 3CR1585-1587. Amundson’s actions regarding the Project
were directed and controlled by Dannenbaum’s design professional, Alan
Hirshman. Id.
C. Chambers County moves forward to the construction phase of the Project.
After getting approval from FEMA for reimbursement, Chambers
County asked Dannenbaum to submit an amendment to the Project
Worksheet to cover increased design and construction costs. Amundson
corresponded with FEMA justifying increases to the already approved
Project Worksheet. 7CR4096
While the amendment was pending, Chambers County moved forward
to Phase II of the MSA.
4 D. Pelco Construction submits a winning bid and contracts directly with Chambers County.
Pelco attended a pre-bid conference for the Project. See 6RR151.
Hirshman and Kurt Amundson represented Chambers County at the
conference and answered questions of the potential bidders. 6CR3800. In
particular, Hirshman highlighted that the Project differed from other
Chambers County projects because the County was seeking reimbursement
from FEMA, and then he explained various details of the design necessitated
by FEMA’s requirements. See 6RR53-54. In particular, Dannenbaum’s
drawings contained a sophisticated flood resistant foundation.
Pelco submitted the winning bid and entered into a standard AIA form
contract with Chambers County for construction of the Project. 6CR3556.
This contract does not mention that Chambers County’s costs on the Project
are FEMA reimbursable nor does it not make the County’s payment
obligations contingent upon FEMA reimbursement. 6CR3644.
E. The Project construction begins.
Dannenbaum provided stamped construction plans and Pelco began
construction. Kurt Amundson served as Pelco’s primary point of contact for
Dannenbaum. 3CR1586. At Hirshman’s instruction, Kurt Amundson
5 monitored Pelco’s construction to ensure compliance with the contract terms,
conditions, and specifications. Id.
F. Chambers County temporarily suspends the Project at its discretion.
On or about October 28, 2010, Chambers County directed
Dannenbaum to temporarily suspend Pelco’s work in order to get approval
of the amended Project Worksheet. 6CR3556.
Forty days later, FEMA approved the amendment and Hirshman
informed Pelco to remobilize. Id.
Pelco did not remobilize, and sent a “Seven-day notice of termination”
letter invoking Article 14 of its contract with the County, which allows Pelco
to terminate in the event of “issuance of an order of a court or other public
authority having jurisdiction which requires all Work to be stopped;…”
6CR3556-3557, 3562. Pelco reasoned that FEMA required the work to be
stopped. 6CR3557; 3664-70.
Unfortunately, for Pelco, it was Chambers County who suspended the
work, not FEMA. 6CR3556.
G. The course of proceedings at the trial court.
Pelco’s filed suit claiming it “had the right to terminate the contract
with Chambers County on the grounds that work was stopped in excess of
6 thirty consecutive days by an order of a governing agency which
jurisdiction….” 1CR37. Pelco maintained this claim at trial. 7CR4066.
After deposing a FEMA representative, Pelco learned that FEMA did
not order the work to stop, nor did it have jurisdiction to order a stop to
Pelco’s work.
Subsequently, Pelco filed a first amended petition alleging claims
against Dannenbaum, Alan Hirshman and Steven McGarraugh (the
“Dannenbum Defendants”) and Amundson Consulting, Inc., Kurt
Amundson and Margie Amundsen. 1CR349-351; 2CR1033-1035. Margie
Amundsen filed a special appearance and was subsequently nonsuited from
the lawsuit by Pelco without a hearing. 3CR1713.
The trial court dismissed the Dannenbaum Defendants, Kurt
Amundson and Amundson Consulting for failure to comply with Civil
Practices & Remedies Code 150.002 by providing a certificate of merit. 3CR
1470; 3CR1798. The First Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the
Dannenbaum Defendants but reversed as to the Amundsons. Pelco Constr.,
Inc. v. Dannenbaum Eng'g Corp., 404 S.W.3d 48, 54–55 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.).
7 After the appeal, Kurt Amundson moved for summary judgment
regarding his individual liability and Amundson Consulting moved for
summary judgment based upon the economic loss doctrine. 6CR3798-3817.
On November 22, 2013, the Court heard and granted Chambers
County’s third motion for summary judgment filed on October 29, 2013,
thereby dismissing Pelco’s breach of contract and Prompt Payment claims.
7CR4258; 3RR35-36.
During this same hearing, the Court heard argument on the Amundson
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on economic loss and individual
liability. 3RR47-64. Ultimately, the trial court stated it was prepared to
grant summary judgment in favor of Kurt Amundson individually, but
wanted to defer economic loss as to Amundson Consulting and enter an
order consistent with the other rulings in favor of Chambers County.
3RR63-64.
Subsequently, the Amundson Defendants filed another summary
judgment on Pelco’s misrepresentation claims based upon the Court’s
findings of fact and prior orders. 7CR4581. Amundson Consulting’s motion
argues for summary judgment because the trial court granted summary
judgment on Pelco’s contract claims against Chambers County holding that
Pelco unreasonably terminated its contract. As such Pelco did not justifiably
8 or reasonably rely on Amundsons’ representations as a matter of law and
Pelco’s alleged damages were not proximate caused by the Amundsons.
7CR4266-4270. Pelco opposed the motion. 7CR4548.
The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of
Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting, Inc. 7CR4581-82.
Summary of Argument
The trial court properly granted Appellees’ motion for summary
judgment.
Argument and Authorities
1. The Standard of Review
The Appellate Court reviews summary judgments de novo. Valence
Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex.2005). A movant is
entitled to traditional summary judgment if (1) there are no genuine issues as
to any material fact and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).
2. Kurt Amundson cannot be individually liable to Pelco because he provided services to Chambers County and the Project under Amundson Consulting’s contract with Dannenbaum Engineering.
Individuals contracting on behalf of corporations are shielded
from personal liability as long as they do not disregard the corporate
structure. See TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE § 21.223. “As a general rule, the
9 failure to perform the terms of a contract is a breach of contract, not a
tort,” and the mere failure to perform a contract is not evidence of
fraud. Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers &
Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46-48 (Tex. 1998).
A finding of contract liability against a corporation does not
necessarily amount to a finding of liability against individuals. “The
corporate structure is designed to shield shareholders from just such
liability.” Menetti v. Chavers, 974 S.W.2d 168, 171 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1998, no pet.). The purpose of a corporation is to protect
persons from personal liability.
Under the Texas Business Organizations Code §21.223 there is
only a viable claim to disregard a corporate structure if there was: (1)
an actual fraud perpetrated and (2) such fraud directly benefitted the
alleged perpetrator(s). See In re HRM Holdings, LLC, 421 B.R. 244,
248 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009 (emphasis in original). If there is legal or
factually insufficient evidence of a direct personal benefit to an owner
resulting from fraud, the corporate disregard finding cannot stand.
10 Even if factually sufficient evidence of fraud existed, 3 there is no
claim or evidence of a direct personal benefit to Kurt Amundson. Texas
courts have held the “direct personal benefit” required by the Code
must “relate to the transaction at issue.” Ocram, Inc. v. Bartosh, 2012
WL 4740859, *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 4, 2012);
Rutherford v. Atwood, No. 01-00-0113-CV, 2003 WL 22053687 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 29, 2003, no pet). Thus in Rutherford,
evidence that a corporation’s sole shareholder and corporate officer
drew money from the corporate bank account when he needed it for
personal matters such as car payments, his personal home mortgage, or
investments; and that he issued corporate checks to his wife, although
she rendered no services to the corporation, was legally insufficient to
support a verdict of corporate disregard because the personal draws
were not related to the transaction at issue. Id.
In this case, Dannenbaum contracted with Amundson Consulting,
Inc. and not with Kurt Amundson individually. 6CR3847. Pelco’s
manager Michael Ramirez knew that Kurt Amundson worked for
Dannenabum and not in his individual capacity. 6CR3820-3821.
3 This statement does not constitute an admission of fraud.
11 Kurt Amundson was a staff member for Amundson Consulting
and all interactions with others were explicitly made on behalf of
Amundson Consulting in its capacity as a staff support for
Dannenbaum. See 6CR3847; see also 6CR3820-3821. Dannenbaum
paid Amundson Consulting for services performed under the Staff
Support Agreement. 3CR1792-1793. Amundson Consulting then paid
Kurt Amundson as a W-2 employee for the same work performed under
the Staff Support agreement. Id. Kurt Amundson was only employee
Amundson Consulting assigned to work under Dannenbaum’s control.
Id.
Pelco’s primary point of contact for Dannenbaum was Kurt
Amundson. 3CR1690. As such of Pelco’s “correspondence, phone calls and
e-mails” to the engineer were sent through Kurt Amundson. Id. For his work
under this agreement, Kurt Amundson used the email address
“kurt.amundson@dannenbaum.com” and identified himself to Chambers
County and Pelco as working for Dannenbaum. 3CR1568. Kurt Amundson
did not use his company’s name in dealing with Chambers County or Pelco.
3CR1585-1587.
The Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Kurt
Amundson individually.
12 3. Kurt Amundson and Amundson Consulting cannot be liable to Pelco for misrepresentations as a matter of law.
A. Pelco appeals claims arising from the pre-bid conference and abandons claims arising from the suspension of work.
In the trial court, Pelco’s response argued that Amundson made two
misrepresentations: (1) An oral statement during the pre-bid conference that
the Project was approved by FEMA; and (2) An oral statement that FEMA
ordered the suspension in work. 7CR4551-4554.
On appeal, Pelco abandons the claims arising from the suspension of
work, and only argues that but for Amundson’s alleged oral representations
that “FEMA funding was approved and in place for the project to go
forward, with no remaining paperwork to be done,” Pelco would not have
bid on the Project. Appellant’s Brief at 29.
Since Pelco abandoned it claims arising from the suspension of work
the Court of Appeals should uphold the judgment against Pelco’s claims
against Amundson arising from the suspension of work.
Even if the claims arising out of suspension of work has not been
abandoned, Pelco’s trial counsel conceded that Pelco did not have the right
to terminate the contract. 2RR20.
13 B. Pelco cannot justifiably rely on pre-contract oral statements regarding FEMA funding because its contract with Chambers County does not provide that payments are contingent upon FEMA reimbursement.
A party cannot justifiably rely on a statement that directly contradicts
the express terms of the parties’ written agreement. DeClaire v. G & B
Mcintosh Family Ltd. P’ship, 260 S.W.3d 34, 46–47 (Tex. App. —Houston
[1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.); H2O Solutions, Ltd. v. PM Realty Grp., LP, 438
S.W.3d 606, 625 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014), reh'g overruled
(Aug. 14, 2014), review denied (Jan. 16, 2015).
Amundson’s efforts to educate Pelco about the design was intended to
ensure the County obtained a facility that complied with FEMA standards.
Pelco’s allegations of fraud are nothing more a leaps of logic turning a
representation about a project being reimbursable from FEMA into a
representation that the project 100% funded.
Whether or not FEMA approved the amendment to the Project
Worksheet at the time of the pre-bid conference is of no consequence because
Pelco’s compensation was not contingent upon Chambers County receiving
FEMA’s reimbursement. 6CR3644. Regardless, FEMA never revoked its
funding, and ultimately, the amendment was approved. 7CR4165.
14 Furthermore, the contract contains an entireties clause which would
merge prior representations into the contract. 7CR4286. This merger clause
expressly covers oral representation and prohibits evidence of additional pre-
contract terms from serving as the basis for a fraudulent inducement claim.
See IKON Office Solutions, Inc. v. Eifert, 125 S.W.3d 113, 125–28 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (providing that provisions
that contract was “entire agreement” and requiring any modifications to be
in writing barred fraudulent-inducement claim under Schlumberger ). Gulf
Liquids New River Project, LLC v. Gulsby Eng'g, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 54, 75
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st District] 2011, no pet.)
Pelco argues that there is nothing in the record to indicate that
Amundson’s alleged misrepresentations at the pre-bid conference were
“made on behalf of Chambers County.” Appellant’s Brief at 32 FN 10. But
Pelco conceded this fact in its petition on file at the time of the summary
judgment hearing. 7CR4058-4059. As such, the contract’s merger clause
would integrate Amundson’s alleged misrepresentations and preclude Pelco’s
fraud claim.
15 C. Amundson established that his statements could have been fraud because the dispute regarding reimbursement arose after the pre-bid conference.
The pre-bid conference occurred in April 2010. 7CR4274. On June 8th,
Pelco entered into the contract for construction of the Project. 7CR4060. Two
days later on June 10th, FEMA first disputed whether the last amendment to
the design was reimbursable. Id.
When Amundson made the alleged misrepresentation. Chambers
County and Amundson did not yet know that FEMA would dispute the
reimbursement eligibility for a small portion of the Project. As such, it is
impossible for Amundson to have known that his alleged misrepresentation
was false.
D. If the Court correct granted summary judgment for Chambers County, than Pelco cannot maintain claims against Amundson because Pelco’s improper termination of the contract is the proximate cause of its damages.
The trial court determined that Pelco had no right to terminate the
Contract based upon the 40-day suspension. 7CR43564. Pelco’s remaining
claims against Amundson arise from damages sustained resulting from its
improper termination of its contract with Chambers County.
Pelco’s later decision to improperly terminate the contract with
Chambers County is unrelated to Amundson’s pre-bid representations and is
16 the sole proximate cause of its damages. “A new and independent cause is
one that intervenes between the original wrong and the final injury such that
the injury is attributed to the new cause rather than the first and more
remote cause.” Dew v. Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 448, 450
(Tex. 2006). The intervening cause relieves the original wrongdoer of
liability for negligence because the intervening negligence destroys “the
causal connection between [the original] negligence and the plaintiff's
injury[.]” Id.
Conclusion and Prayer
For the reasons stated in this brief, Kurt Amundson and Amundson
Consulting, Inc. request the Court affirm the order of summary judgment
and final judgment below. Appellees also request any other proper relief.
17 Respectfully submitted,
Mills Shirley L.L.P. 2228 Mechanic St., Ste. 400 Galveston, Texas 77550 Telephone: 409.761.4001 Facsimile: 409.763.2879
By: /s/ Robert E. Booth Robert E. Booth Texas Bar No. 24040546 rbooth@millsshirley.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Kurt Amundson Amundson Consulting, Inc.
Certificate of Service
As required by TEX. R. APP. P. 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), (e), I certify that I served a correct copy of this document to all counsel of record on January 28, 2015.
/s/ Robert E. Booth Robert E. Booth
01/28/2015 Date
18 Certificate of Compliance
I certify that this document was produced on a computer using Microsoft Word 2013 and contains 2,723 words, as determined by the computer software’s word-count function, excluding the sections of the document listed in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1).