United States of America et al v. AHTNA Construction and Primary Products, LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES for the use &
benefit of MIDSTATE EQUIPMENT,
INC.; MIDSTATE EQUIPMENT,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AHTNA CONSTRUCTION &
PRIMARY PRODUCTS, LLC;
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. 	INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Miller Act lawsuit was tried to the court from July 12, 2021, through
July 16, 2021, in Anchorage, Alaska. 	This court has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 3133. 	The parties’ several state law claims also were tried.
They are so related to the Miller Act claim as to form part of the same controversy.
This court has jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the court sets out its
findings of fact and conclusions of law below.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 2
II. 	FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	Plaintiff Midstate Equipment, Inc. (hereinafter “Midstate”), is an
Alaska corporation. 	It is a civil construction contractor located in Delta Junction,
Alaska.
2. 	Defendant 	Ahtna 	Construction 	and 	Primary 	Products, 	LLC
(hereinafter “Ahtna”), is an Alaska limited liability company. It is a general contractor
specializing in civil construction.
3. 	Defendant 	Great 	American 	Insurance 	Company 	(hereinafter
“Great American”) is an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in Alaska as a
surety.
4. 	Ahtna 	entered 	into 	an 	agreement 	with 	the 	United 	States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (hereinafter
“NRCS”), in 2018 to perform work at the Delta Clearwater Remediation Project
Phase 2 near Delta Junction, Alaska (hereinafter “the Project”). 	The NRCS/Ahtna
contract is referred to hereinafter as the “Prime Contract.”
5. 	As required by law, Ahtna provided a payment bond (“the Bond”)
for the Project. The Bond was issued by Great American.
6. 	Among other things, the Prime Contract required Ahtna to
provide and spread topsoil and woody debris on the Project site in accordance with the
specifications in the Prime Contract. Ahtna agreed that it would be paid on a unit price
basis of a fixed amount per square yard.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 3
7. 	Prior to submitting its bid for the Project, Ahtna had received a
proposal from Midstate (hereinafter “Quote”) to supply and deliver top soil and woody
debris to the Project. The Quote was given to Ahtna on January 4, 2018. In the Quote,
Midstate offered to deliver up to 424,450 square yards of topsoil and up to 517,829
square yards of woody debris. 	No other supplier proposed to provide and deliver
topsoil and woody debris. 	Ahtna used Midstate’s Quote in preparing its bid to
construct the Project.
8. 	Midstate proposed to provide and deliver topsoil at a price of
$2.62 per square yard. 	The Quote stated: 	“Measurement for payment will be by an
agreed price per cuyd per truck load.”
9. 	Midstate proposed to provide and deliver woody debris at a price
of $2.60 per square yard. The Quote states: “Measurement for payment will be by the
truck load.”
10. 	Ahtna 	issued 	purchase 	order 	PO-07020-001 	to 	Midstate
(hereinafter “Purchase Order”) for supplying and delivering topsoil and woody debris
among other things. The Purchase Order was executed by both parties. The Purchase
Order included as an attachment a copy of Midstate’s Quote and stated in bold
italicized language, “Midstate Original Quote Attached as Reference Only.” 	For
NRCS, the Quote would have been very significant because it showed Midstate would
provide the quantities of topsoil and woody debris required by the Prime Contract. The
Purchase Order was a unit price agreement using square yards for units of delivery. It
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 3 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 4
specified payment terms of “Net 30.” 	Unit costs were specified as $2.62 per square
yard for topsoil and $2.60 per square yard for woody debris.
11. 	Prior to commencement of deliveries by Midstate, Ahtna and
Midstate did not discuss, much less agree on, the dimensions of a truckload nor a unit
price per truckload for either topsoil or woody debris.
12. 	NRCS estimated that the Project would require 424,450 square
yards (“SY”) of topsoil and 517,829 square yards of woody debris.1 NRCS prepared
detailed Project specifications (“Specifications”) describing the types of materials to
be used and the methods employed for their placement.2
13. 	The Specifications stated Ahtna would be paid for both topsoil
and woody debris based on “in-place” measurements. 	Ahtna and NRCS would
together use professional surveyors to measure the total surface covered by these
materials, determining the amount of surface area through a “horizontal projection” of
the surveyed “perimeter.”3
14. 	For topsoil measurements, the parties would then calculate total
square yards of material according to the measured perimeter and the uniform
thickness or “lift” of the topsoil spread by Ahtna.4
1 Trial Exhibit (hereinafter “Ex.”) 6, p. 6.
2 Ex. 3.
3 Ex. 3, pp. 7, 11.
4 Trial Transcript (hereinafter “Tr.”). Vol. 3, pp. 107–11 (T. Champine) (describing process
of measuring placed materials).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 4 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 5
15. 	The Project drawings instructed Ahtna to spread the “loose”
topsoil into an eight-inch-thick lift throughout the Basin and adjoining areas.5 	The
Specifications instructed Ahtna to spread the topsoil using a “low ground pressure
(LGP) type dozer . . . equipped with and operating by GPS machine control.”6 GPS
devices mounted on the blade of the dozer monitored the height of the blade from the
subgrade. 7 	The GPS machine control would adjust the height of the blade to
compensate for any changes in the subgrade.8 The result was a consistent “loose” lift
thickness.
16. 	Section 7(a)(6) of the Specifications provided: 	“The measured
thickness of the topsoil shall be from the approved subgrade to the top of the loose
topsoil before track-walking.” 9 	“Track-walking” refers to the compression of the
topsoil lift by the tracks of the dozer immediately after the blade at the front of the
dozer has cut the loose topsoil into a lift.10 The Specifications thus required that the
dozer maintain a blade height of eight inches to create the loose lift for purposes of
measurement for payment, but did not require any particular compaction density or
depth after the blade had “cut” this lift and the tracks of the dozer immediately
compacted the topsoil.
5 Ex. 2, pp. 7–10, 17–19.
6 Ex. A, p. 53.
7 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 134 (D. McKoon); Tr. Vol. 4, p. 99 (D. O’Donnell) (“That dozer blade does
not go below that 8 inches.”).
8 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 108–09 (T. Champine).
9 Ex. A, p. 53.
10 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 108-109 (T. Champine).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 5 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 6
17. 	The Project Specifications also provided detailed requirements
for “furnishing and spreading woody debris at locations shown on the drawings.”11
The woody debris needed to have “a minimum stem length of four (4) feet and a
minimum diameter of four (4) inches at the largest end.”12 Ahtna needed to spread the
woody debris in a way that would result in “ground coverage” of 20 to 40 percent.13
18. 	Both Ahtna and NRCS would measure the woody debris for
payment by determining the “horizontal projection” of the surveyed “perimeter.”14
However, unlike the “lift thickness” requirement for topsoil, the woody debris placed
within the measured perimeter would only “count” for payment if it met the ground
coverage density required, regardless of how thick it was placed.
19. 	According to the Specifications: “Percent Ground cover shall be
measured by throwing a 100-foot tape over random linear transects of the woody debris
matrix” and measuring lengths of woody debris exceeding one (1) inch in diameter
which are attached to a larger piece of wood meeting the four (4) inch diameter
requirement.”15 	Consequently, if the person taking these measurements identified
woody debris but it did not meet these dimensions, that woody debris would not create
the required density and would not count towards the density requirement. If placed
11 Ex. A, p. 78.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Ex. A, pp. 80–81; Tr. Vol. 3, p. 129 (T. Champine) (Q. “Was there anyone else out there
besides Ahtna that was going out and taking measurements of those boundaries?” A. “NRCS took
measurements of those boundaries”).
15 Ex. A, p. 78.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 6 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 7
woody debris did not result in the required ground coverage, other woody debris, with
correct dimensions, could be added to the uncounted woody debris in order to pass the
density requirements and be counted for payment.16
20. 	As part of preparation of its bid on the Project, Ahtna contacted
Midstate Equipment, Inc. (“Midstate”).17 Midstate is a civil construction contractor
located in Delta Junction, Alaska.
21. 	Midstate determined that it could submit bids to supply the topsoil
and woody debris to the Project, but chose not to bid to place the materials.18
22. 	On January 4, 2018, Midstate delivered the Quote to Ahtna
offering to deliver up to 424,450 SY of topsoil and 517,829 SY of woody debris to the
Project.19 The Quote stated a unit price of $2.62 per SY of topsoil and $2.60 per SY
of woody debris.
23. 	The Quote stated “[p]lacement is responsibility of others.”20 It
also noted that for topsoiling: “Measurement for payment will be by an agreed price
per cuyd per truck load.”21 It noted that for woody debris: “Measurement for payment
will be by the truck load.”22
16 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 123 (D. McKoon) (“What happens when you go out there and measure it after
it’s placed is you got – you got to place a lot of wood out there to make that area meet spec”).
17 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 137–38 (T. Champine).
18 Tr. Vol. 1, p. 13 (D. Karr).
19 Ex. 5.
20 Id.
21 Ex. 5, p. 2.
22 Id.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 7 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 8
24. 	The Quote did not further define “truckload” by describing either
the types of trucks Midstate planned to use or the anticipated carrying capacity of those
trucks. 	The Quote also did not identify a unit price per truckload or state when the
parties would be expected to arrive at such a price.
25. 	On February 1, 2018, Ahtna and NRCS signed an agreement
awarding the Project to Ahtna.23 NRCS agreed to pay Ahtna $4.40 per SY for topsoil
and $3.55 per SY for woody debris.24
26. 	On February 12, 2018, Ahtna delivered the Purchase Order to
Midstate offering to purchase topsoil and woody debris for the Project.25 The Purchase
Order stated the same estimated quantities and unit costs in the Quote.
27. 	The Purchase Order was a “unit price” agreement, with square
yards for units of delivery.26 It did not describe payment by the truckload. It stated in
bold italics: “Midstate Original Quote Attached as Reference Only.”27
28. 	Ahtna and Midstate executed the Purchase Order without any
changes to the text on February 14, 2018.28
23 Ex. 6, p. 2.
24 Ex. 6, p. 6.
25 Ex. 7.
26 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 29 (J. Braham).
27 Ex. 7, p. 3.
28 Ex. 9.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 8 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 9
29. 	Prior to performance, the parties neither discussed nor agreed
upon the dimension of a “truckload” nor a unit price per “truckload” for either topsoil
or woody debris.29
30. 	Midstate began delivering topsoil on June 22, 2018.30 Midstate
used both side-dump trucks and lower-capacity end-dump trucks.31 The trucks would
enter the work area and dump the topsoil. Midstate did not confirm the quantity of the
loads of topsoil as they were delivered by Midstate onto the jobsite.32 Ahtna personnel
examined the dumped load, but only to make sure there were no excessive organic
materials.33
31. 	On June 26, 2018, representatives of Ahtna, NRCS, and Midstate
met at the Project site to evaluate the level of compaction in the topsoil immediately
created by the dozer when it track-walked the eight-inch “loose” lift the blade at the
front of the dozer had cut into the topsoil delivered by Midstate.34 Ahtna and NRCS
informally 	agreed 	that 	the 	tracks 	of 	the 	dozer 	compressed 	the 	loose 	lift 	to
approximately 6.5 inches.35
32. 	However, Ahtna and NRCS did not agree to change the eight-inch
loose lift requirement in the Specification that was used to measure the lift and serve
29 Ex. 20; Ex. 25.
30 Tr. Vol. 1, p. 27 (D. Karr).
31 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 14 (J. Braham).
32 Tr. Vol. 2, p. 160 (S. Perkins); Tr. Vol. 2, p. 167 (C. Sonnichsen); Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 174–75
(K. Sams).
33 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 110 (D. McKoon).
34 Ex. B; Tr. Vol. 4, p. 140 (D. McKoon).
35 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 140 (D. McKoon).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 9 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 10
as basis for payment to Ahtna.36 According to the contract between Ahtna and NRCS,
such a change would have required a written modification to the Specifications under
the parties’ contract and the Federal Acquisition Regulations.37 There is no written
modification between Ahtna and NRCS of any kind among the exhibits that were
admitted at trial. Midstate representatives Dick Karr and John Braham acknowledged
at trial that he never saw such a modification.38
33. 	Mr. Karr became concerned that the estimated track-walking
compaction density discussed at the June 26 meeting was incorrect.39 He mistakenly
believed that the specification had changed and the parties had agreed to a 6.5-inch
compacted lift for purposes of payment, and that, because the topsoil might compact
much more than eight inches during track-walking, Ahtna was now placing the
materials “too thick” in order to meet the measurement for payment.40
34. 	Mr. Karr began asking Midstate representatives onsite to sign
daily load sheets indicating the number of truckloads of topsoil delivered.41 He did
this because the load sheets stated an estimated average topsoil capacity for each truck,
and Mr. Karr was concerned that being paid on the basis of in-place values rather than
36 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 156–57 (T. Champine) (“It’s not a real deviation because they were
approving the eight-inch loose fill was being complied with”); Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 98–99 (D. O’Donnell)
(“We were paid on 8 inches loose at the cut below the dozer blade”); Tr. Vol. 4, p. 140 (D. McKoon)
(“I know that this stuff was yielded in at 8 inches. That’s the only way you can place this stuff, to
know what you’re putting in. That was the agreement.”).
37 Ex. 6, p. 31 (incorporating FAR 52.243-4 “Changes”).
38 Tr. Vol. 2, p. 115 (D. Karr); Tr. Vol. 3, p. 17 (J. Braham).
39 Tr. Vol. 1, p. 48 (D. Karr).
40 Ex. 29.
41 Ex. 20.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 10 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 11
by 	the 	truckload 	would 	result 	in 	underpayment 	to 	Ahtna 	and, 	consequently,
underpayment to Midstate.42
35. 	The load sheets specified that each truck carried 112.5 SY of
topsoil per load, despite the absence of any agreement on estimated truckload
quantities between the parties.43 When assuming an eight-inch lift, 112.5 SY of topsoil
is 25 cubic yards (“CY”).44
36. 	Mr. Karr also was concerned that Ahtna would not spread
delivered woody debris to a minimum density of 20 percent.45 If Ahtna placed the
woody debris at a higher density, then it would be placing more material than necessary,
resulting in potential underpayment to Ahtna and, consequently, Midstate.46 For this
reason, Mr. Karr also wanted to be paid by an estimated quantity per truckload for
woody debris.47
37. 	Mr. Karr had prepared the original bid estimate for Midstate.48 In
it, he used an estimated truckload capacity of 28 CY of topsoil.49 However, in a July 22,
2018 letter to Ahtna, he informed Ahtna that it would be billed on the basis of 25 CY
per truck.50 At trial, Mr. Karr testified that he planned to use the lower estimate in
42 Ex. 24.
43 Ex. 20, p. 2.
44 Ex. E. A “square yard” is a measurement of area, but a “cubic yard” is a measure of volume.
In order to estimate the number of square yards a truck will carry it is necessary to convert those square
yards into cubic yards.
45 Ex. 25.
46 Ex. 37.
47 Ex. 25.
48 Tr. Vol. 1, p. 13 (D. Karr).
49 Ex. 4, p. 2.
50 Ex. E.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 11 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 12
order to receive an interim payment and “get a cash flow going,” with Midstate
delivering a later invoice showing more accurate quantities later in the future.51
38. 	On July 30, 2018, Midstate sent Ahtna its first invoice (Invoice
1931), billing for 911 loads of topsoil at an estimated truckload volume of 121.5 SY
(27 CY). 52 	The invoice billed Ahtna for 1,080 loads of woody debris, with an
estimated truckload volume of 124.24 SY.
39. 	Ahtna acknowledged internally that it needed to make a “progress
payment” to Midstate in order to keep its subcontractor funded, but Ahtna also needed
a basis for Midstate’s estimated average volumes before it could process payment.53
40. 	Ahtna asked Midstate for a basis for the estimated truckload
volumes in Invoice 1931.54 Midstate replied: 	“We arrived at the load capacity thru
past experience and field verification.”55
41. 	Ahtna informed Midstate that it needed a “more scientific”
explanation for the estimates.56 A dispute ensued between the parties regarding the
estimated volumes of each truck, the best method for determining estimated volumes,
and the results of tests performed in an effort to establish those volumes.
51 Tr. Vol. 2, p. 109 (D. Karr); see also Tr. Vol. 2, p. 5 (D. Karr).
52 Ex. 33.
53 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 147 (T. Champine) (Q. “Why not just pay the full amount of the invoice
here?” A. “Because I don’t have any data to justify those volumes”); see also Ex. 36; Ex. 49.
54 Ex. 35.
55 Id.
56 Ex. 37.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 12 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 13
42. 	On August 3, 2018, Midstate sent Ahtna a revised Invoice 1931.57
The load count remained the same, but Midstate increased its estimated truckload
capacities to 129.5 SY per truck for topsoil and 124.24 SY per truckload for woody
debris.
43. 	Ahtna began receiving estimates of placed quantities from its
surveyors, who were using the methods described in the Specifications to measure the
amount of placed topsoil and woody debris.58 	Ahtna noted that Midstate’s invoice
requested 21.4 percent more topsoil than measured in-place, and 25.67 percent more
woody debris than measured in-place.
44. 	To Ahtna, the variance between invoiced quantities and measured
quantities indicated that Midstate was sending topsoil in underloaded trucks and woody
debris that did not meet the required Specification (i.e., woody debris that was placed
but did not “count” toward payment).59
45. 	Ahtna’s Project Superintendent had observed underloaded trucks
of topsoil at the Project “all summer long,” confirming Ahtna’s theory explaining the
variance.60 Ahtna had not rejected these truckloads because the topsoil was needed to
move the Project forward and meet the Project deadlines, and it made no sense to reject
57 Ex. 45.
58 Ex. 46; Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 125–29 (T. Champine).
59 Ex. 46; Tr. Vol. 3, p. 172 (T. Champine).
60 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 112–14 (D. McKoon).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 13 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 14
usable topsoil when Midstate was at all times being paid by the in-place square-yard
and not the truckload.61
46. 	Although Midstate disputed that the trucks of topsoil were
underloaded, 	Ahtna 	was 	not 	routinely 	inspecting 	truckloads 	and 	thus 	had 	no
verification beyond individual reports from the jobsite. 	Because Midstate was being
paid for in-place square-yards, there was no system in place (by either Midstate or
Ahtna) to inspect the truckloads of topsoil prior to delivery and make sure that they
were full.62
47. 	At trial, Midstate presented testimony during a review of 14
photos of side-dump trucks, stating that each truck was carrying more than 27 CY of
topsoil.63 However, 14 photos is too small a sample from which to draw the conclusion
that Midstate consistently delivered more than 2,500 full loads throughout the Project.
48. 	Ahtna put Midstate on notice that it was observing underloaded
trucks of topsoil. 	Ahtna’s Project Manager had called Midstate’s president, John
Braham, earlier in the Project, and asserted that Ahtna personnel were complaining of
underloaded trucks.64
49. 	On 	the 	woody 	debris, 	Ahtna’s 	Project 	Superintendent 	also
observed delivered loads with less than four inches diameter at the stem and therefore
61 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 115–16 (D. McKoon) (“I take all the topsoil that I could get, right?”).
62 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 114–16 (D. McKoon).
63 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 7–12; Ex. 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 86.
64 Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 183–84 (J. Braham).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 14 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 15
at a density lower than required in the Project Specifications.65 Ahtna generally did
not reject these truckloads because the materials could be placed at the Project together
with the in-spec woody debris, saving the time and effort of either sorting the pile or
finding a way to return the entire pile of woody debris to the harvest area.66 Also,
Midstate acknowledged at trial that it did not have the capability to haul-away out-of-
spec debris rejected by Ahtna.67
50. 	Out-of-spec woody debris placed at the Project would not “count”
towards payment because it would not be captured in the measurements made by Ahtna
and NRCS.68 Ahtna believed that Midstate would ultimately receive payment only for
the in-spec material that it delivered because Midstate was at all times paid by the in-
place square-yard and not the truckload.
51. 	Midstate’s project manager accused Ahtna personnel of lying
about light loads of topsoil delivered to the Project.69
52. 	Midstate requested a meeting between its president, John Braham,
and Ahtna’s President, Dave O’Donnell, to resolve the dispute over estimated and
actual quantities of delivered materials.70
65 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 123–27 (D. McKoon).
66 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 118–19 (D. McKoon).
67 Tr. Vol. 2, p. 126 (D. Karr).
68 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 123 (D. McKoon) (“What happens when you go out there and measure it after
it’s placed is you got – you got to place a lot of wood out there to make that area meet spec”).
69 Ex. 50; Tr. Vol. 2, p. 128 (D. Karr).
70 Ex. 51.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 15 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 16
53. 	The two individuals met at the jobsite on August 13, 2018.71
Mr. Karr indicated to Mr. O’Donnell at this meeting that he was trying to avoid
financial hardship and looking for a payment of some kind in order to further fund his
work.72 	Mr. Karr acknowledged that Midstate had botched its original bid.73 	The
parties did not come to an agreement at the meeting regarding quantities.
54. 	Mr. Karr sent an email to Mr. O’Donnell on August 22, 2018,
asking for an agreement that the estimated average truckload capacity for Midstate’s
trucks was 27 CY (121.5 SY) for topsoil and 120 SY for woody debris.74
55. 	On August 22, Mr. O’Donnell wrote back: 	“Even though you
gave me a number in your bid which follows the bid schedule as well as the
specifications in which to measure against, I’ll agree to the truck load measurement of
120 sq./yd for woody debris and 27 CY on topsoil. With that being said, I also reserve
my right to reject any load that does not meet those volumes or does not meet project
specifications. 	This is final and I will not entertain any other discussion on this
matter.”75
56. 	Mr. O’Donnell explained at trial that by “I’ll agree to the
truckload measurement” he meant that Ahtna would agree to process interim payment
on the basis of 	the 	estimated 	measurements. 76 	Midstate offered no evidence
71 Ex. 51; Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 57–64 (D. O’Donnell).
72 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 60–62 (D. O’Donnell).
73 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 62 (D. O’Donnell).
74 Ex. 53.
75 Ex. 54.
76 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 65 (D. O’Donnell).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 16 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 17
demonstrating that this was not Mr. O’Donnell’s intention at the time he made the
statement.
57. 	Mr. O’Donnell also explained at trial that by “this is final” he
meant that there would be no further discussion as to the estimated average capacities
of the trucks for purposes of processing interim payment to Midstate.77 In other words,
“final” did not refer to future payments on the basis of truckload measurements being
final 	payments 	rather 	than 	interim 	payments. 	Midstate 	offered 	no 	evidence
demonstrating that this was not Mr. O’Donnell’s intention at the time he made the
statement.
58. 	At trial, Ahtna presented expert testimony that the practice of
interim or “progress” payments following delivery of civil construction materials is
standard practice for similar projects in Alaska.78 The purpose of progress payments
and a final reconciliation is to address the uncertainty as to delivered quantities without
in-place measurements and at the same time the need for the subcontractor/supplier to
receive some form of payment in order to continue funding their operations.79
59. 	Mr. O’Donnell testified that he did not explicitly inform Mr. Karr
of the fact that invoices would be paid only as interim progress payments because
Mr. O’Donnell knew Mr. Karr personally and reasoned that a person with so much
77 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 66 (D. O’Donnell).
78 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 33 (M. Jens).
79 Id.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 17 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 18
experience 	in 	Alaska 	civil 	construction 	would 	anticipate 	receipt 	of 	progress
payments.80
60. 	Mr. Champine, who reviewed invoices from Midstate throughout
2018, also did not inform Midstate that it would receive interim progress payments.
Mr. Champine also reasoned that the industry practice was so pervasive in Alaska civil
construction that it was unnecessary to inform Midstate.81
61. 	John Braham, president of Midstate, was personally expecting
that Midstate was receiving interim progress payments at least at some point during
performance of the work. 	He testified at trial that Midstate intended to later send a
final invoice on the basis of actual placed quantities but never did so.82
62. 	Prior to the August 22 agreement, Ahtna had observed that
Midstate’s truckloads were “trending up” and become more and more full.83 But after
August 22 these truckloads began to lighten.84
63. 	On August 25, 2018, Midstate informed Ahtna that it was now
delivering “marginal” woody debris with a diameter of approximately 3.5 inches.85
Midstate was running-out of debris that was four inches and above in diameter, so it
“took a chance” and delivered the marginal trees in hopes that the materials would
80 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 75–82 (D. O’Donnell).
81 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 166–67 (T. Champine).
82 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 13–14 (J. Braham).
83 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 62–63 (D. O’Donnell).
84 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 70–71 (D. O’Donnell).
85 Ex. 55.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 18 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 19
ultimately meet the Project Specifications.86 This woody debris could be placed by
Ahtna but would not be counted for purposes of payment when the woody debris was
measured.87
64. 	On August 29, 2018, Midstate delivered Invoice 1940, requesting
payment for 632 truckloads of topsoil and 1,148 truckloads of woody debris according
to the estimated capacities stipulated in the August 22 email.88
65. 	Invoice 	1940 	erroneously 	included 	in 	the 	stated 	count 	of
truckloads of topsoil some deliveries by an end-dump vehicle Midstate used, which
carried less than 27 CY.89 There was no evidence at trial of an agreement between the
parties as to the estimated average quantities of the end-dump vehicles.
66. 	On 	September 	24, 	2018, 	Midstate 	submitted 	Invoice 	1951,
requesting payment for 444 truckloads of topsoil and 552 truckloads of woody debris
according to the estimated capacities stipulated in the August 22 email.90
67. 	On October 3, 2018, Midstate submitted Invoice 1953, requesting
payment for 310 truckloads of topsoil and 370 truckloads of woody debris according
to the estimated capacities stipulated in the August 22 email.91
86 Ex. 55.
87 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 123 (D. McKoon).
88 Ex. 56.
89 Ex. R, p. 9.
90 Ex. 84.
91 Ex. 89.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 19 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 20
68. 	On October 8, 2018, Midstate submitted Invoice 1954, requesting
payment for 22,356 SY of topsoil and 39,960 SY of woody debris.92 This invoice did
not include a count of truckloads.
69. 	In October the 2018 season ended and the Project shut down for
the winter.
70. 	During the shutdown, Ahtna consulted with its surveyor to
determine the amount of topsoil and woody debris placed at the Project using the
system of measurement described in the Specifications.93 Ahtna did this in order to
prepare a pay application to NRCS summarizing all materials placed in 2018.
71. 	Using survey data, Ahtna calculated that it had placed 248,679
SY of topsoil and 336,199 SY of woody debris in 2018. 94 	Following a lengthy
approval process, NRCS paid Ahtna for these quantities according to the original unit
price agreement.95
72. 	By the end of 2018, Midstate had billed Ahtna for 301,418 SY of
topsoil and 417,960 SY of woody debris.96 That was a substantial variance between
what Midstate invoiced Ahtna for and what NRCS had approved for payment to
Ahtna.97
92 Ex. 93.
93 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 142 (T. Champine).
94 Ex. G, p. 29.
95 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 140–42 (T. Champine); Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 75–76 (D. O’Donnell).
96 Ex. 102, pp. 1–3.
97 Ex. 102.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 20 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 21
73. 	On November 2, 2018, Ahtna sent Midstate a letter informing
them of the variance between the quantity billed and the quantity placed.98 	Ahtna
concluded that Midstate’s estimate of square yards on the basis of truckload capacities
had been highly inaccurate.
74. 	Ahtna further concluded that this inaccuracy was due to either:
(1) a failure of the parties to properly estimate the average capacity of each vehicle;
(2) the delivery of underloaded trucks of topsoil and woody debris that was out-of-
specification and therefore not counted toward payment; or (3) all of the above.99
75. 	Ahtna explained at trial that it waited until November 2, 2018, to
send a letter explaining actual placed quantities and corresponding payment to
Midstate because it was only at that point that Ahtna had completed its survey of placed
quantities, received certified approval from NRCS, and prepared a pay application for
reimbursement to Ahtna.100
76. 	Midstate presented no evidence at trial that Ahtna intentionally
waited until November 2, 2018, to send the above letter to Midstate in order to wait
until Midstate was done delivering materials for the 2018 season.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 75–76 (D. O’Donnell).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 21 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 22
77. 	Ahtna agreed to make a final payment of $108,251.18 to “true-up”
for all materials delivered and measured in-place.101 	Ahtna made the payment on
December 28, 2018.102
78. 	Midstate believed that it had been underpaid. 	On December 21,
2018, Midstate placed a Miller Act claim on Ahtna’s payment bond, in the amount of
$376,564.82.103
79. 	On March 15, 2019, Midstate requested information regarding its
continued performance in 2019.104
80. 	On 	March 	29, 	2019, 	Ahtna 	informed 	Midstate 	that 	it 	was
cancelling further deliveries from Midstate.105 	Ahtna asserted that the delivery of
incomplete loads of topsoil and non-conforming loads of woody debris had resulted in
invoicing for materials never delivered, and Ahtna was therefore cancelling further
deliveries.106
81. 	Ahtna procured topsoil and woody debris for the Project in 2019
by self-performance.107 	Ahtna avers that it enjoyed a savings in comparison to the
amounts charged by Midstate because Ahtna consistently procured complete loads of
topsoil and woody debris that always met the specified dimensions.108
101 Ex. 102, p. 5.
102 Ex. 106, p. 5.
103 Ex. 105, p. 24; see 41 U.S.C. § 3131 et seq.
104 Ex. 111.
105 Ex. 114.
106 Ex. 114, p. 6.
107 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 73 (D. O’Donnell).
108 Ex. 122; Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 22–23 (T. Champine).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 22 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 23
82. 	Total invoices from Midstate and payments by Ahtna in 2018 are
as follows:
Invoice No 	Invoice Date 	Amount 	Date Paid 	Amount Paid 	Balance
1931 (v.3)109 	7/27/2018 	$ 	626,958.63 	09/25/2018 	$ 	626,958.63110 	$ 	-
1940 (v.2)111 	8/31/2018 	$ 	559,325.19 	10/12/2018 	$ 	559,325.19112 	$ 	-
1951113 	9/24/2018 	$ 	313,562.52 	10/19/2018 	$ 	313,562.52114 	$ 	-
1953115 	10/3/2018 	$ 	214,122.30 	12/28/2018 	$ 	108,251.18116 	$ 105,871.12
1954117 	10/8/2018 	$ 	162,468.72 	11/9/2018 	$ 	42,000.00118 	$ 120,468.72
$ 1,876,437.36 	$ 1,608,097.52 	$ 253,079.56
83. 	Midstate struggled to demonstrate the actual amount outstanding
and the accuracy of its own invoices. 	For example, Midstate has acknowledged that
Invoice 1931 (v.3) overbilled Ahtna by $7,332.75 because Midstate incorrectly
invoiced for topsoil that was actually woody debris, and incorrectly invoiced for topsoil
at 27 CY per truckload when Midstate had used an end-dump truck carrying just 12
CY per truckload.119 	Midstate made similar mistakes in Invoice 1940, overbilling
Ahtna $7,250.83.120
84. 	At trial Mr. Karr could not explain why Invoice 1931 billed Ahtna
for 1,080 loads of woody debris and yet his analysis of truck tickets showed only 1,051
109 Ex. 61.
110 Ex. 106, p. 2.
111 Ex. 63.
112 Ex. 106, p. 3.
113 Ex. 84.
114 Ex. 106, p. 3.
115 Ex. 89.
116 Ex. 106, p. 5.
117 Ex. 93.
118 Ex. 106, p. 4.
119 Ex. 170.
120 Ex. 170, p. 2.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 23 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 24
loads.121 Mr. Braham admitted that Midstate had billed Ahtna for materials it never
delivered.122
85. 	Midstate’s expert economist attempted to change his damages
calculus in the middle of trial to correct the overbilling. 123 	However, he also
acknowledged that the records generally used to formulate Misdate’s invoices “do not
agree with each other.”124
86. 	Midstate 	continued 	invoicing 	Ahtna 	even 	after 	the 	parties’
contract had terminated. 	On February 5, 2020, Midstate informed Ahtna that in the
course of litigation it had “discovered” truck tickets for 84 loads of topsoil that were
never invoiced.125 	Despite the cancellation of the parties’ contract one year prior,
Midstate demanded payment within 30 days.
87. 	Rather than wait 30 days for payment, Midstate asked this Court
two days later for leave to amend its Complaint and include the balance for the
“discovered” truck tickets in its damages quantum.126 Midstate was now suing Ahtna
for a balance not yet due.
121 Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 131-135.
122 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 27 (J. Braham) (Q. “So Ahtna paid for woody debris that it never got, right?”
A. “Yes”).
123 Ex. 171; Tr. Vol. 3, p. 75 (G. Moorehead).
124 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 82.
125 Ex. 138.
126 See Motion for Relief from Deadline to File Amended Complaint, Docket 31.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 24 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 25
III. 	CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Breach of Contract
1. 	The parties do not dispute the validity of the Purchase Order or
the enforceability of the stipulated agreement regarding estimated truckload quantities,
memorialized in the August 22, 2018 email from Mr. O’Donnell to Mr. Karr (hereafter
the “August 22 Email”).
2. 	A breach of contract is a failure, without legal excuse, to perform
any promise which forms the whole or part of a contract.127 Midstate asserts that Ahtna
breached the parties’ contract twice: first when it failed to pay Midstate’s invoices and
again when it canceled further deliveries.
3. 	Because the parties’ agreement was an agreement for the purchase
of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), as incorporated in Alaska Statutes,
governs the construction and enforcement of the agreement.128
4. 	The parties present competing interpretations of both the original
Purchase Order and the agreement memorialized in the August 22 Email. This Court
interprets both agreements by “ascertain[ing] and giv[ing] effect to the reasonable
intentions of the contracting parties.”129
127 Kimp v. Fire Lake Plaza II, LLC, 484 P.3d 80, 89–90 (Alaska 2021) (quoting 23
W ILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 63:1 (4th ed. 2018)).
128 See AS 45.02.101 et seq.
129 W. Pioneer, Inc. v. Harbor Enters., Inc., 818 P.2d 654, 656 (Alaska 1991); see also Weiner
v. Burr, Pease & Kurtz, P.C., 221 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2009) (applying rule of construction to a disputed
modification to an existing agreement).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 25 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 26
5. 	The court may attempt to ascertain the intent of the contracting
parties by examining “language of the contract as a whole, the objects sought to be
accomplished by the contract, the circumstances surrounding its adoption, and case
law interpreting its provisions.”130 The relevant extrinsic evidence examined by the
court is the course of performance by the parties, the course of dealing between the
parties, and the usage of trade.131
6. 	The parties do not dispute that the Purchase Order was a unit price
agreement to deliver quantities of topsoil and woody debris at a square yard unit price.
The parties do dispute whether the Purchase Order obligated them to later agree to a
stipulated quantity of each material carried by each truck for purposes of payment.
7. 	However, it is not necessary for the Court to decide this issue.
Ahtna did later agree to pay by the truckload on the basis of a stipulated quantity. The
August 22 Email offered, and Midstate accepted, a modification to the Purchase Order
that stipulated “the truckload measurement of 120 sq./yd. for woody debris and 27 cy
on topsoil.”132 	Five times in 2018 Midstate invoiced for square yards of delivered
materials 	by 	multiplying 	its 	recorded 	truckloads 	by 	these 	stipulated 	truckload
measurements, and Ahtna paid three of these invoices in full.
8. 	The court must decide whether the August 22 Email was an offer
to make “interim” payments on the basis of stipulated truckload measurements, with
130 Monzigo v. Alaska Air Grp., Inc., 112 P.3d 655, 660 (Alaska 2005).
131 AS 45.02.202.
132 Ex. 54.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 26 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 27
final payment delivered to Midstate on the basis of the actual measured quantity of
square yards of material delivered by Midstate.
9. 	The plain language of the August 22 Email does not lend itself to
either party’s interpretation. 	On the one hand, there is no mention of “interim” or
“progress” payments, so the plain meaning does not clearly warrant that interpretation.
On the other hand, the August 22 Email only agrees to a stipulated “truck load
measurement,” and does not state whether such measurement is a unit price basis for
payment that replaces the original “square yard” basis for payment stated in the
Purchase Order.
10. 	The August 22 Email states: “This is final and I will not entertain
any other discussion on the matter.”133 Mr. O’Donnell explained at trial that “this is
final” did not mean that all further payments to Midstate would be final, but rather that
there would be no further discussion as to estimated truckload measurements.134 A
plain reading of the August 22 Email, which makes no reference whatsoever to
payments, supports Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony.
11. 	Even if the plain language of the August 22 Email were sufficient
to show the intent of the contracting parties, “[i]t is not necessary to find that an
agreement is ambiguous before looking to extrinsic evidence as an aid to determine
133 Id.
134 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 66 (D. O’Donnell).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 27 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 28
what it means.” 135 	The Court finds that extrinsic evidence is of assistance to
determining the intent of the contracting parties.
12. 	The course of performance of the parties provides almost no
evidence in support of either party’s interpretation of the agreement. 	Neither side
produced evidence at trial showing that either party had indicated to the other in the
course of performance whether or not payments processed by Ahtna after August 22,
2018, were “interim” only.
13. 	However, there was evidence at trial that in the course of
performance Midstate delivered truckloads of topsoil that were not fully loaded and
truckloads of woody debris that did not meet specifications. Midstate’s performance
provides some circumstantial evidence that it was expecting payment by the truckload
only and not on the basis of in-place materials, because a reasonable contractor
expecting to be paid on the basis of in-place materials would use care to deliver fully
loaded trucks with materials that conformed to the specifications.
14. 	Turning to the course of dealings between the parties, there is
evidence in support of Ahtna’s interpretation. Mr. Karr acknowledged at trial that he
was planning on receiving an interim payment in order to “get some money in the
bank.”136
135 Estate of Polushkin ex rel. Polushkin v. Maw, 170 P.3d 162, 167 (Alaska 2007); see also
AS 45.02.202.
136 Tr. Vol. 2, p. 109 (D. Karr); Tr. Vol. 2, p. 5 (D. Karr); see also Ex. R, p. 9 (“Midstate sent
this invoice with conservative quantities, so it could take an approved invoice to the bank to be used
as borrowing collateral.”).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 28 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 29
15. 	Also, Midstate’s president, John Braham, delivered a letter to
Ahtna on July 22, 2018, stating several times that Midstate’s invoices were “pay
estimates” rather than describing them as final.137 	At trial, Mr. Braham agreed the
invoices sent by Midstate were a request for interim payment, with another invoice to
follow later based on “what was actually hauled by the trucks.”138
16. 	Turning to evidence of the usage of trade there is stronger
evidence in support of Ahtna’s interpretation. Ahtna’s President testified that interim
payments followed by a final payment on the basis of actual quantities delivered is
industry practice in agreements for the delivery of unit price materials to a civil
construction project.139 Ahtna’s expert witness, Mike Jens, testified that on the basis
of more than 50 years working in civil construction projects it was his observation that
the “interim payments” approach is standard industry practice.140 Midstate provided
no testimony to the contrary at trial.
17. 	On balance, the extrinsic evidence supports Ahtna’s interpretation
of the August 22 Email, which is that Ahtna offered, and Midstate accepted, interim
payments on the basis of estimated truckload quantities and a reconciliation of these
interim payments with the actual quantities of materials measured-in place once Ahtna
made these measurements.
137 Ex. E.
138 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 14 (J. Braham).
139 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 66–69 (D. O’Donnell).
140 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 33 (M. Jens).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 29 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 30
18. 	The next issue is whether Midstate was given a final payment on
the basis of in-place quantities, pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Ahtna made a final
payment of $108,251.18 to Midstate for quantities delivered.141
19. 	The UCC obligates Ahtna to “pay at the contract rate for any
goods accepted.”142 As explained above, the “contract rate” was at all times $2.62 per
SY for topsoil and $2.60 per SY for woody debris.
20. 	NRCS paid Ahtna for 248,679 SY of topsoil and 336,199 SY of
woody debris.143 Ahtna paid Midstate for 248,679 SY of topsoil and 336,215 SY of
woody debris.144 Ahtna fully compensated Midstate for calculated in-place quantities,
with overpayment to Midstate for 16 SY of woody debris.
21. 	Midstate argues in the alternative that, even if Midstate was to be
paid according to “in-place” measurements, Ahtna reimbursed it for an insufficient
number of square yards. Under Alaska law, Midstate is entitled to payment only for
goods actually delivered and accepted.145
22. 	Turning first to topsoil, Midstate argues that Ahtna placed the
topsoil too thick on the Project grade, resulting in underpayment to Ahtna and
consequently Midstate after surveyors calculated the total square yardage.
141 Ex. 102.
142 AS 45.02.607(a).
143 Ex. G, p. 29.
144 Ex. 102.
145 AS 45.02.507(a); AS 45.02.601.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 30 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 31
23. 	Midstate asserts that the Specifications originally assumed an
eight-inch loose lift cut by the dozer immediately prior to track-walking, but Ahtna
and NRCS changed the assumption to a 6.5-inch compacted lift after track-walking.
Midstate asserts that the change did not correctly account for actual topsoil compaction,
and the result was Ahtna placing the topsoil too thick, thereby skewing the final
measurement for payment to less than the actual placed square yards.
24. 	There is no evidence of a change in the Specifications, which
would need to be in writing in order to be legally binding. Ahtna established at trial
that it was paid on the basis of an eight-inch loose lift thickness at all times,
notwithstanding an informal agreement as to the effect of track-walking on the loose
topsoil.
25. 	Ahtna demonstrated, through both expert testimony and the
testimony of onsite personnel, that Ahtna maintained a consistent eight-inch loose lift
thickness by maintaining a blade on its dozer that compensated for changes in the
subgrade via GPS technology.146
26. 	Midstate’s evidence to the contrary did not include expert opinion
of any kind. 	It primarily consisted of daily reports prepared by Mr. Karr to Ahtna,
stating that he observed varying topsoil thickness of seven to nine inches during the
work.147 Mr. Karr was under the mistaken impression Ahtna and NRCS had agreed to
146 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 36 (M. Jens) (“No, I didn’t see that they had put it in too thick”).
147 Ex. 91, pp. 81–87.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 31 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 32
measurement for payment on the basis of a compacted lift, so these anecdotal findings
do not go to the actual issue, which is whether the blade of the dozer maintained a
consistent loose lift thickness. 	Midstate offered no evidence at trial regarding the
operation of the dozer.
27. 	Midstate has not proven that Ahtna placed topsoil in a way that
resulted in inaccurate in-place measurements at the conclusion of the 2018 season.
28. 	Midstate also has not proved that the methods used by Ahtna to
measure in-place topsoil—prescribed by NRCS and not at Ahtna’s discretion—were
inaccurate.
29. 	Turning 	next 	to 	woody 	debris, 	Midstate 	alleges 	that 	the
measurements were inaccurate because Ahtna had placed these materials too thick,
resulting in underpayment for actual quantities used.
30. 	Midstate’s evidence consisted primarily of some photographs
taken by Mr. Karr after Ahtna had cancelled further deliveries by Midstate, allegedly
showing materials placed too thick.148 Midstate presented no actual measurements of
placed materials at trial. It also did not challenge the efficacy of the measurement-for-
payment method described in the Specifications. It also did not rebut expert testimony
from Ahtna’s expert regarding Ahtna’s placement methods and the accuracy of its
measurements.149
148 Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 48–61 (D. Karr).
149 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 38 (M. Jens).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 32 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 33
31. 	Ahtna did acknowledge at trial placing woody debris very thick
at times. 	It did so because Midstate had delivered “marginal” trees that may or may
not meet the requirement of four inches in diameter. 	At the time of the Project,
Midstate did not dispute it was delivering “marginal” woody debris.150
32. 	Ahtna attempted to use the marginal woody debris, placing the
materials at whatever thickness appeared to be necessary in order to meet the
requirements of the Specifications. According to Ahtna, any deficiency in the woody
debris that resulted in placement of a large quantity of materials was Midstate’s fault.
Ahtna’s explanation is persuasive.
33. 	Midstate has not proven that Ahtna placed woody debris in a way
that resulted in inaccurate in-place measurements at the conclusion of the 2018 season.
34. 	Midstate also has not proved that the methods used by Ahtna to
measure in-place woody debris—prescribed by NRCS and not at Ahtna’s discretion—
were inaccurate.
35. 	Ahtna’s theory as to the reason for Midstate invoicing in excess
of placed materials is that Midstate delivered underloaded trucks of topsoil and out-of-
specification woody debris. This theory is persuasive. It is supported by the evidence
of light and nonconforming loads, summarized in the above findings of fact.
150 Ex. K.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 33 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 34
36. 	Midstate has not demonstrated that the quantities used by Ahtna
to pay Midstate were inaccurate. 	Ahtna did not breach the parties’ contract when it
delivered final payment for measured square yards.
37. 	Midstate argues in the alternative that Ahtna was contractually
obligated to pay for the truckloads it delivered, regardless of the actual quantity of
conforming 	materials 	later 	measured 	in-place, 	because 	Ahtna 	accepted 	those
truckloads, and rejected almost no loads over the course of the Project.
38. 	A buyer’s obligation to pay for goods is triggered by acceptance
of the goods.151
39. 	As a buyer of goods, Ahtna had the right to inspect the topsoil and
woody debris “before payment or acceptance” and “at a reasonable place and time and
in a reasonable manner” following tender of materials by Midstate.152 	Tender of
delivery took place when Midstate delivered the materials to the jobsite and Ahtna
exercised control over the materials. 	Ahtna inspected the topsoil and woody debris
upon tender, and accepted almost all of the materials following inspection.
40. 	However, the inspection of topsoil conducted by Ahtna at the
jobsite did not encompass the quantity of topsoil delivered, only whether or not the
topsoil contained excessive organic material.153 The requirement of the UCC that the
151 AS 45.02.607(a).
152 AS 45.02.513(a).
153 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 110 (D. McKoon).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 34 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 35
quality of goods conform to the contract applies to the quantity of the goods
delivered.154
41. 	Ahtna demonstrated at trial that an inspection of the actual
number of square yards delivered could not occur until Ahtna spread the topsoil onto
the grade and measured the dimensions. 	It was also unreasonable for Ahtna to send
back what appeared to be an underloaded truck or small pile—Ahtna did not want to
reject perfectly-good topsoil.155
42. 	Midstate presented no evidence at trial that Ahtna could have or
should have measured the square yards of topsoil delivered before spreading it in order
to confirm the number of square yards delivered.
43. 	Similarly, the inspection of woody debris immediately after
delivery did not evaluate how much of the woody debris inside the pile contained
“marginal” or out-of-spec materials—only that some trees in the pile were out-of-
specification.156
44. 	Ahtna did not measure the actual quantity of topsoil or in-spec
woody debris delivered until after the materials were delivered, spread, and measured
for payment by both Ahtna and NRCS, and Ahtna and NRCS conferred regarding an
agreement on the quantities and concomitant payment to Ahtna. 	Ahtna’s President
154 See, e.g., Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 25 A.3d 221 (N.J. 2011).
155 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 115–16 (D. McKoon).
156 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 118–19 (D. McKoon).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 35 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 36
explained at trial that final certification of placed materials by NRCS could take
months after performance of the work.157
45. 	It would be reasonable to expect that Midstate, which had
reviewed the Specifications and itself previously delivered topsoil and woody debris
for NRCS, would realize the difficulty of measuring actual quantities for payment upon
initial acceptance of a truckload.158
46. 	A buyer’s obligation to pay for goods is triggered by acceptance
of the goods. However, a buyer may revoke acceptance prior to making payment if a
“lot or commercial unit” does not conform to the requirements of the agreement to
such extent that it “substantially impairs its value to the buyer,” provided that the
conformity has not been “seasonably cured” by the seller or the buyer’s initial
acceptance of the goods was “reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery
before acceptance or by the seller’s assurances.”159
47. 	Where a defect substantially impairs the value to the buyer, but
that defect cannot be determined upon initial acceptance of the goods, a subsequent
discovery of the defect and revocation of acceptance is timely.160
157 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 74 (D. O’Donnell).
158 Tr. Vol. 1, p. 3 (D. Karr).
159 AS 45.02.608; see also Sumner v. Fel-Air, Inc., 680 P.2d 1109, 1116 (Alaska 1984) (failure
to deliver title to airplane substantially impaired goods delivered, justifying revocation of acceptance).
160 See S&R Metals, Inc. v. C. Itoh & Co. (Am.), Inc., 859 F.2d 814, 817 (9th Cir. 1988) (defect
in 14-gauge steel could only be discovered following delivery and initial acceptance, making
revocation of acceptance after discovery permissible under the UCC); Exim Brickell LLC v. PDVSA
Servs., Inc., 516 Fed. Appx. 742, 754 (11th Cir. 2013) (revocation of acceptance of some lots of
powdered milk was timely where buyer demonstrated the difficulty of identifying the defect at the
time of the initial acceptance).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 36 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 37
48. 	The November 2, 2018 letter from Ahtna to Midstate revoked
acceptance of some of the topsoil and woody debris placed by Ahtna on grounds that
Midstate had overstated the amount of materials delivered.
49. 	The revocation of acceptance was both reasonable and timely.
Ahtna demonstrated at trial the difficulty of discovery of the actual quantities delivered
by Midstate and accepted by NRCS at the time of the initial acceptance of deliveries.
50. 	There was no evidence at trial that Midstate attempted to cure the
defect in quantities identified in the November 2, 2018 letter.
51. 	A remaining issue is whether the difference between the amount
invoiced and the amount measured in-place was a nonconformity that “substantially
impaired” the value of the accepted goods, permitting revocation of prior acceptance.
The existence of “substantial impairment” (of either a single installment or the whole
contract) depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.161
52. 	The November 2, 2018 letter observed an overage of 121 percent
for topsoil and 124.31 percent for woody debris.162 That is a substantial overage, and
sufficient to substantially impair the value (asserted by Midstate) of the accepted goods.
53. 	Midstate has not demonstrated that that Ahtna untimely revoked
acceptance of incorrect quantities of topsoil and woody debris.
161 See Midwest Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, L.L.C. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 965 F. Supp.
1003, 1013 (W.D. Mich. 1997), aff’d, 165 F.3d 27 (6th Cir. 1998); see also GNP Commodities, Inc. v.
Walsh Heffernan Co., 420 N.E.2d 659, 669 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981).
162 Topsoil: 248,679/301,418 = 121.21 x 100; Woody Debris: 336,215/417,960 = 124.31 x
100.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 37 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 38
Wrongful Termination
54. 	Midstate argues that Ahtna wrongfully repudiated its agreement
with Midstate by cancelling further deliveries of topsoil and woody debris before work
resumed in the 2019 construction season.
55. 	Whether or not a cancellation of delivery is a breach of contract
under the UCC depends in part on the nature of the contract. An “installment contract”
is a contract that “requires or authorizes the delivery of goods in separate lots to be
separately accepted.”163
56. 	The parties’ agreement was an installment contract because it
contemplated delivery of topsoil and woody debris by the truckload.
57. 	Ahtna was permitted to reject installments of material that did not
conform to either the quantity or the quality agreed to by the parties, but only to the
extent that the defect identified by Ahtna “substantially impairs the value of that
installment.”164
58. 	Moreover, “[i]f nonconformity or default with respect to one or
more installments substantially impairs the value of the whole contract, there is a
breach of the whole.”165
163 AS 45.02.612(a).
164 See AS 45.02.612(b).
165 AS 45.06.612(c).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 38 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 39
59. 	Mr. O’Donnell testified at trial that the reason Ahtna canceled
further deliveries was: “We had materials being delivered or asked to be paid for that
weren’t delivered.”166
60. 	The evidence at trial affirmed the accuracy of Mr. O’Donnell’s
statement. 	For example, both Mr. Karr and Mr. Braham admitted that Ahtna paid
Invoice 1931 even though it billed Ahtna for truckloads of woody debris never
delivered. 	Midstate 	acknowledged 	other 	instances 	of 	billing 	for 	nonexistent
truckloads.167
61. 	Again, the test of “substantial impairment” is subjective, and it is
important to distinguish between a mere miscommunication and conduct by a seller
that causes a breakdown in the parties’ relationship.168 This situation was the latter.
For example, John Braham admitted that when Ted Champine called him to discuss
the problem of light loads and invoicing for undelivered truckloads, Mr. Braham
“slammed the phone down, hung up on him.”169 Mr. O’Donnell explained that reports
of this kind of incident informed Ahtna’s decision to cancel further deliveries.170
62. 	Ahtna also based its decision on the variance between what
Midstate billed Ahtna and what Ahtna measured in-place. 171 	Ahtna observed an
166 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 72.
167 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 14–15 (J. Braham).
168 See Midwest Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, L.L.C., 965 F. Supp. 1003 considering the
cumulative effect of the breaching party’s performance based upon all the circumstances).
169 Tr. Vol. 2, p. 184.
170 Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 72–73 (D. O’Donnell).
171 Ex. 114.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 39 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 40
overage of 121 percent for topsoil and 124.31 percent for woody debris. The overage
confirmed reports from Mr. McKoon that Ahtna was delivering light loads of topsoil
and defective woody debris that NRCS did not count toward payment. An overage of
that degree substantially impaired the value (asserted by Midstate) of the whole
contract.
63. 	There was no evidence at trial that Midstate attempted to cure the
defect in quantities identified in the November 2, 2018 letter. Ahtna properly cancelled
further deliveries by Midstate.
64. 	Finally, Midstate has asserted that Ahtna did not timely respond
to a March 15, 2019 letter requesting assurance that Midstate would continue to
provide materials to the Project during the 2019 season.172 Ahtna responded to the
letter on March 29, 2019, explaining that it was canceling further deliveries by
Midstate.173
65. 	Whether 	Ahtna 	timely 	delivered 	notice 	of 	the 	cancelation
“depends on the nature, purpose, and circumstances of the action.”174 The Court finds
that a period of 14 days between the request for assurance and the notification of
cancellation was not an unreasonably long period of time under the circumstances.
172 See Amended Complaint [Docket 57], ¶ 17.
173 Ex. 114.
174 AS 45.01.215(a).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 40 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 41
Quantum Meruit and Promissory Estoppel
66. 	Midstate 	has 	pled 	both 	quantum 	meruit 	and 	promissory
estoppel.175 	Under both legal theories a party may assert that, although there is no
express contract between the parties, there is at least an implied contract because to
find otherwise would unjustly enrich the defendant.176 The remedy following success
of either of these claims is restitution.177
67. 	However, under Alaska law, where a party has acknowledged that
a valid, binding contract between the parties exists, that party does not have a prima
facie claim of promissory estoppel and therefore may not seek a remedy of quantum
meruit.178
68. 	There is no dispute that the parties had a valid and binding
contract. Midstate may not recover under either the theory of quantum meruit or the
theory of promissory estoppel.
Unfair Trade Practices
69. 	Midstate 	has 	alleged: 	“Ahtna’s 	agreement 	and 	subsequent
August 22, 2018 email confirming the same was made solely to induce Midstate’s
continued performance through the winter shutdown. 	Ahtna never intended to meet
175 See Amended Complaint [Docket 57], ¶¶ 27–32.
176 See Alaska Sales and Serv., Inc. v. Millet, 735 P.2d 743, 746 (Alaska 2004); see also Brady
v. State, 965 P.2d 1, 13 n.38 (Alaska 1998).
177 See Alaska Sales and Serv., Inc., 735 P.2d at 746.
178 See Soules v. Ramstack, 95 P.3d 933, 940 (Alaska 2004); see also Sutter Home Winery,
Inc. v. Vintage Selections, Ltd., 971 F.2d 401, 408 (9th Cir. 1992); see also 30 Williston on Contracts
§ 77:121 (4th ed. 2021) (“Where a benefit is conferred within the framework of a valid and enforceable
contract, the recipient’s liability to make compensation is fixed exclusively by the contract.”).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 41 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 42
the terms of the agreement it made with Midstate or its August 22, 2018 email.”179
Midstate further argues that Ahtna’s “deception” was a violation of Alaska’s Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“UTPA”).180
70. 	Alaska Statute 45.50.471(b) identifies 57 specific unlawful acts
or practices. This Court has previously observed that the only provision of the UTPA
upon which Midstate can potentially demonstrate a violation is AS 45.50.471(a).181
This provision generally prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct
of trade or commerce.182
71. 	Whether an act is “unfair” is determined using a “multi-factored
approach,” which considers: 	“(1) whether the practice, without necessarily having
been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy, as it has been established
by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—whether, in other words, it is within at
least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of
unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and
(3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers.”183
72. 	Ahtna’s 	offer 	to 	stipulate 	to 	estimated 	truckload 	quantities,
presented in Mr. O’Donnell’s August 22 Email, was not an unfair act. 	Midstate has
not demonstrated that the offer offended public policy. 	Midstate also has not
179 Amended Complaint [Docket 57], ¶ 35.
180 Amended Complaint [Docket 57], ¶ 37; AS 45.50.010 et seq.
181 See Order Re: Motions at Dockets 64, 74, 92 [Docket 118], p. 18.
182 See also State v. O’Neill Investigators, Inc., 609 P.2d 520, 534 (Alaska 1980).
183 Merdes & Merdes, P.C. v. Leisnoi, Inc., 410 P.3d 398, 412 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Borgen
v. A &M Motors, Inc., 273 P.3d 575, 590 (Alaska 2012)).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 42 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 43
demonstrated that the offer was immoral, oppressive, or unscrupulous. It was not an
act that caused or would cause substantial injury to consumers.
73. 	Moreover, Midstate is seeking enforcement of the terms described
in the August 22 Email. Midstate cannot both seek enforcement of the offered terms
and at the same time argue that the act of offering those terms was “unfair.”
74. 	The remaining issue is whether the August Email was deceptive.
An act or practice is deceptive if it has “the capacity or tendency to deceive.”184
75. 	Whether an act is deceptive is fact-sensitive. 	At trial each party
demonstrated it was a sophisticated business entity with substantial experience in the
civil construction industry in Alaska. 	The Alaska Supreme Court has noted that an
unfair trade practice is an “inequitable assertion of power or position” vis-à-vis the
contracting parties.185 It is therefore more difficult for Midstate to demonstrate that
the email had a capacity or tendency to deceive than it would be if Midstate were not
in a position equal to that of Ahtna.
76. 	This Court has previously acknowledged that the UTPA prohibits
unfair or deceptive acts, but not unfair or deceptive intentions. 186 	The inquiry is
184 Borgen, 273 P.3d at 589; see also Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240,
1255 (Alaska 2007).
185 Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc., 167 P.3d at 1256 (quoting S. Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tenn., L.P. v.
Riese, 284 F.3d 518, 539–40 (4th Cir. 2002)).
186 See Order Re: Motions at Dockets 64, 74, 92 [Docket 118].
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 43 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 44
whether the August 22 Email was “capable of being interpreted [by Midstate] in a
misleading way,” regardless of what Ahtna intended at the time it sent it.187
77. 	Midstate has not carried the burden of proving that the August 22
Email, standing alone, was capable of being interpreted in a misleading way. Midstate
has only alleged that Ahtna “never intended to meet the terms of the agreement it made
with Midstate or its August 22, 2018 email.”188 	Again, Ahtna’s intentions do not
potentially constitute acts or practices in violation of the UTPA.189
78. 	Turning to the language of the August 22 Email itself, the only
specific language therein which Midstate identifies as capable of being interpreted in
a misleading way are the words “this is final” at the conclusion of the email. 190
Midstate contends this language could be interpreted to mean that all future payments
would be “final” and not interim.
79. 	However, that is not what the email says. It says that the offer to
“agree to the truckload measurement” is final, and makes no mention of payment at
all.191 Also, the parties presented extensive evidence of an acrimonious controversy
between them regarding potential truckload measurements prior to the email, so it is
187 Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc., 167 P.3d at 1255 (quoting State v. O’Neill Investigations,
Inc., 609 P.2d 520, 535 (Alaska 1980)).
188 Amended Complaint [Docket 57], ¶ 35.
189 Even if Ahtna’s intentions as to whether it would pay Midstate at the time of the August 22
Email were relevant, the evidence in the record is that Ahtna not only intended to pay Midstate
according to the terms but actually did pay Midstate exactly according to the terms, at least prior to
the December 2018 final payment. See Ex. 106, pp. 2–3.
190 Ex. 54.
191 Ex. 54.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 44 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 45
reasonable to conclude that Mr. O’Donnell said “this is final” to indicate that he did
not wish to discuss the matter further. That was his testimony at trial.192
80. 	In addition to not demonstrating that the email was objectively
misleading, Midstate has not demonstrated that Mr. O’Donnell intended to mislead
anyone in his email. 	There is no testimony proving insincerity on Mr. O’Donnell’s
part.
81. 	The closest Midstate can get to proof is an email sent by
Mr. Champine to Midstate on August 10, 2018, identifying a variance between
quantities placed versus stated truckloads. 193 	Midstate says that Mr. Champine’s
knowledge of the variance shows Ahtna’s motivation to pay by the truckload to induce
continued performance and then “short-pay” after the season ended, knowing it would
spend 	less 	in 	the 	end. 	However: 	(1) there 	are 	no 	communications 	between
Mr. Champine and Mr. O’Donnell on this issue, and Mr. O’Donnell is the one that sent
the “inducing” email; and (2) Mr. Champine shared the information with Midstate—it
was hardly a conspiracy. If anything, it put Midstate on notice to expect a “true-up.”
82. 	Midstate also has not demonstrated that it was actually misled by
the email. 	Midstate argues that it was induced into “continued performance.”
However, 	Midstate’s 	project 	manager, 	Mr. 	Karr, 	testified 	that 	Midstate 	never
contemplated terminating its performance in the event that Ahtna did not deliver
192 Tr. Vol. 4, p. 66 (D. O’Donnell) (“I don’t want to go next week and go through this again,
or the following week and go through it again.”)
193 Ex. 46.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 45 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 46
acceptable terms to Midstate.194 If Midstate were in fact contemplating terminating its
performance, there is no evidence that it ever communicated this fact to Ahtna prior to
the August 22 Email, thereby providing Ahtna a motivation to “induce” continued
performance.
83. 	There also is an inconsistency in Midstate’s argument that it was
fraudulently induced into performance. Midstate has premised its claim of breach of
contract on the plain language and legal enforceability of the August 22 Email. But a
party may not try to recover a remedy on the basis of a contract and at the same time
try to recover a separate remedy on grounds that it was fraudulently induced into
agreeing with the terms of that same contract.195
84. 	Midstate has not demonstrated that delivery of the August 22
Email was an act or practice with the capacity or tendency to deceive. Ahtna did not
violate the UTPA.
Midstate Damages
85. 	Midstate has alleged two categories of damages: 	(1) unpaid
invoices; and (2) lost profit and overhead for work it would have performed in 2019
but for cancellation of further deliveries by Ahtna.196
194 Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 127–28.
195 The election-of-remedies doctrine “refers to situations where an individual pursues
remedies that are legally or factually inconsistent” and operates to “prevent[] a party from obtaining
double redress for a single wrong.” Latman v. Burdette, 366 F.3d 774, 781–82 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Alexander v. Gardner–Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 49 (1974)); see also Bankers Tr. Co. v. Pac. Emps.
Ins. Co., 282 F.2d 106, 110–11 (9th Cir. 1960).
196 See Amended Complaint [Docket 57], p. 11.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 46 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 47
86. 	Damages are recoverable following a breach of contract only in
an amount that the non-breaching party can establish with reasonable certainty.197
87. 	Midstate has not established the amounts due in its invoices with
reasonable certainty. This fact is evidenced by uncertainty from Midstate at trial as to
the exact quantities and types of materials delivered and therefore the exact amounts
allegedly due.
88. 	At trial, Midstate acknowledged overbilling Ahtna. Midstate also
acknowledged having great difficulty establishing what it delivered to the Project and
therefore what was due from Ahtna. 	Consider Midstate’s constant revisions to its
invoices, one of which was made even in the middle of trial:
Total Amount Claimed 	Exhibit
$268,313.64 	Claim on Bond (Ex. 105)
$295,114.93 	Expert Report (Ex. AN)
$277,843.21 	Supplemental to Expert Report (Ex. 156)
$275,340.21 	Mid-Trial Report Supplemental (Ex. 171)
89. 	Explanatory 	notes 	in 	two 	of 	the 	exhibits 	referenced 	above
acknowledge inaccuracies in the invoices, resulting in uncertainty on damages.198 Mr.
Braham acknowledged at trial that part of the problem was Midstate sometimes billed
197 See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 352 (1981); City of Whittier v. Whittier
Fuel and Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216, 224 n.29 (Alaska 1978).
198 Ex. 156; Ex. 171.
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 47 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 48
Ahtna for 27 CY of topsoil when the delivery was actually performed by a truck with
much smaller capacity.199
90. 	Another problem was poor recordkeeping by Midstate, which
make it impossible to determine exactly what trucks delivered what materials. At trial,
Midstate’s expert economist testified that it is possible to arrive at exact amounts due
by examining: 	“daily reports and truck tickets.”200 However, he also acknowledged
that in some instances “the two documents don’t agree with each other.”201
91. 	Midstate 	has 	not 	proved 	with 	reasonable 	certainty 	by 	a
preponderance of the evidence the amounts which it alleges are due on account of
unpaid invoices.
92. 	The second category of damages sought by Midstate is lost profit
and overhead for work it would have performed in 2019 but for cancellation of further
deliveries by Ahtna.
93. 	Midstate is only owed lost profit, including “reasonable overhead,”
if it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ahtna’s cancellation of
deliveries for 2019 was a repudiation of the Purchase Order for which Ahtna had no
legal excuse.202
199 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 15 (J. Braham).
200 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 81 (G. Moorehead).
201 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 82 (G. Moorehead).
202 AS 45.02.708. The UCC potentially entitles a non-breaching seller to “incidental costs”
incurred by reason of the cancellation of further deliveries. See AS 45.02.710. However, Midstate is
not seeking recovery of incidental costs. See Tr. Vol. 3, p. 91 (G. Moorehead).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 48 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 49
94. 	“An award of lost profits is not proper if it is the result of
speculation.”203 Lost profits must be proved with reasonable certainty.204 There must
be a “reasonable basis” upon which a finder of fact can compute an award.205
95. 	Midstate’s expert economist calculated lost profits by calculating
an anticipated hourly rate for each square yard of topsoil or woody debris Midstate
planned to deliver in 2019, then multiplying that hourly rate by the amount of materials
measured in-place following completion of the work by Ahtna in 2019. 206 	It is
noteworthy that Midstate is using Ahtna’s in-place measurement results, which it
otherwise considers unreliable, as a reliable basis for calculation of its lost profit and
overhead.
96. 	Midstate’s 	expert 	then 	calculated 	the 	anticipated 	“truckload
quantities” that would actually be delivered by inflating those quantities beyond the
quantities measured in-place.207 He reasoned that Midstate should have been paid for
more than what was measured in-place in 2018, and therefore should also be paid for
more than what was measured in-place in 2019. 	He calculated that Midstate should
receive profit and overhead according to an effective square yard unit price of $3.31
203 Guard v. P & R Enters., Inc., 631 P.2d 1068, 1071 (Alaska 1981) (citing Dowling Supply
& Equip., Inc. v. City of Anchorage, 490 P.2d 907, 909–10 (Alaska 1971)).
204 See id. at 1072.
205 See City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel and Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216, 222 (Alaska 1978).
206 Ex. AN, p. 6.
207 Ex. AN, p. 7 (increasing “average square yards per load” from 96.23 and 94.68 to 121.5
and 120).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 49 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 50
per SY of topsoil and $3.30 per SY of woody debris, to address the insufficiency of
payment on the basis of in-place quantities.208
97. 	Midstate’s basis for its calculation of lost profit and overhead is
not reasonable. 	There is no evidence that Ahtna ever agreed, or would agree, to
effective unit prices of $3.31 per SY of topsoil and $3.30 per SY of woody debris.
Midstate is only speculating that in-place quantities would have been an insufficient
basis for payment in 2019, and Midstate is only speculating as to the degree of that
insufficiency.
98. 	Midstate’s expert economist did not use historical job cost data
when determining the expenses that would form Midstate’s direct costs in 2019.209
Instead, he used bid estimates and conversations with Mr. Karr.210 	In construction
accounting, the use of bid estimates in lieu of job cost data to establish damages is
disfavored, because the latter is more reliable than the former.211
99. 	Midstate has not used a reasonable basis for calculating its lost
profit and overhead, and therefore has not demonstrated with reasonable certainty what
that lost profit and overhead should be.
100. 	Having determined that Midstate has not proved an entitlement
to damages, it is unnecessary to address Midstate’s claim to recover interest.
208 Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 89–90 (G. Moorhead).
209 Tr. Vol. 3, p. 93 (G. Moorehead).
210 Ex. AN, pp. 7–9.
211 See Am. Line Builders, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1155, 1181–82, 1193 (1992)
(describing use of actual job costs as the “preferred” method for calculation of a contractor’s damages).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 50 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 51
Ahtna Counterclaim: Breach of Contract
101. 	Ahtna has alleged a breach of the Purchase Order by Midstate.212
102. 	A breach of contract is a failure, without legal excuse, to perform
any promise which forms the whole or part of a contract.213
103. 	Ahtna alleges that the delivery of invoices billing Ahtna for
nonexistent or misstated truckloads, and the demand for payment for square yards of
materials in excess of the quantities measured in-place, constituted breach of the
Purchase Order.
104. 	Midstate’s invoicing was a failure, without legal excuse, to
perform the promise to bill Ahtna only for square yards of material actually delivered.
Midstate breached the Purchase Order.
Ahtna Counterclaim: Unfair Trade Practices
105. 	Ahtna has alleged that Midstate committed unfair trade practices,
in violation of the UTPA.214
106. 	The UTPA describes the following as an unfair or deceptive act
or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce: “representing that goods or services
are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or
model, if they are of another.”215
212 Ahtna Answer to Amended Complaint [Docket 58], p. 11.
213 Kimp v. Fire Lake Plaza II, LLC, 484 P.3d 80, 89-90 (Alaska 2021) (quoting 23 Williston
on Contracts § 63:1 (4th ed. 2018)).
214 Ahtna Answer to Amended Complaint [Docket 58], p. 12.
215 AS 45.50.471(b)(6).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 51 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 52
107. 	The UTPA also describes the following as an unfair or deceptive
act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce: “engaging in any other conduct
creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding and that misleads, deceives,
or damages a buyer or a competitor in connection with the sale or advertisement of
goods or services.”216
108. 	Midstate was a seller of goods and Ahtna was a buyer of goods
within the definitions of the UTPA.
109. 	By representing that all its deliveries of woody debris contained
material that met the Project Specifications, when they did not, Midstate violated the
UTPA.
110. 	By invoicing Ahtna for materials that it did not in fact deliver to
the Project, and by representing that it delivered materials in quantities that were not
in fact the actual quantities delivered, Midstate violated the UTPA.
Ahtna Damages
111. 	Although 	Ahtna 	has 	demonstrated by 	preponderance of the
evidence that Midstate breached the Purchase Order, it did not demonstrate at trial any
actual damages incurred by reason of the breach. Ahtna is therefore awarded nominal
damages of one dollar ($1.00).217
216 AS 45.50.471(b)(11).
217 Galipeau v. Bixby as Tr. of Irrevocable Tr. of Rose E. Fong, 476 P.3d 1129, 1134 n.13
(Alaska 2020) (“If the breach [of contract] caused no loss or if the amount of the loss is not proved
. . .[,] a small sum fixed without regard to the amount of loss will be awarded as nominal damages.”
(second alteration original) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 346 (1981)).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 52 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 53
112. 	The UTPA provides that a person who suffers an ascertainable
loss may bring a civil action to recover for each unlawful act or practice “three times
the actual damages or $500, whichever is greater.”218
113. 	There is no dispute between the parties that Midstate submitted to
Ahtna at least two invoices for materials Midstate never delivered to the Project, and
that Ahtna paid those invoices in full.219 There is therefore no dispute that Ahtna has
suffered an ascertainable loss by reason of Midstate’s violation of the UTPA.
114. 	However, Ahtna did not proffer a calculation at trial of the exact
amount it was overbilled by Midstate. Ahtna has not demonstrated its actual damages
incurred due to Midstate’s violation of the UTPA with reasonable certainty.
115. 	Because Ahtna has demonstrated that it suffered an ascertainable
loss but has not demonstrated its actual damages, the Court orders an award of $500 in
Ahtna’s favor.
116. 	While 	Ahtna 	has 	demonstrated 	violation 	of 	both
AS 45.50.471(b)(6) and AS 45.50.471(b)(11), Ahtna will not be awarded attorney’s
fees as the prevailing party because these state law counterclaims involved minimal
time and effort as compared to the time and effort involved in defending against
Midstate’s Miller Act claims. Moreover, the defense of the Miller Act claims required
consideration of facts intertwined with the counterclaims.
218 AS 45.50.531(a).
219 	Ex. 170 (acknowledging overbilling on Invoice 1931 and Invoice 1940); Ex. 171
(acknowledging overbilling on Invoice 1931); Ex. 106, p. 2 (showing payment of Invoice 1931 in full);
Ex. 106, p. 3 (showing payment of Invoice 1940 in full).
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 53 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Midstate Equip., Inc., et al. v. Ahtna Constr. & Primary Prods., LLC, et al. 	Case No. 4:19-cv-00010-JWS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 	Page 54
IV. 	DIRECTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment that Midstate recover nothing
from Ahtna, and that Ahtna recover $501.00 from Midstate. Ahtna may ask the Clerk
to tax costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and L. Civ. R. 54.1.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ John W. Sedwick
JOHN W. SEDWICK
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:19-cv-00010-JWS Document 184 Filed 08/17/21 Page 54 of 54