Case Background
A North Carolina labor staffing company sued two solar construction firms over more than $1.1 million in unpaid invoices for workers it supplied to a solar energy project in Arkansas. The case, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, bore case number 4:24-CV-00598-BSM and went to a five-day jury trial in April 2026.
Cause
HardHat Workforce Solutions, LLC entered into a Services Agreement with OSS-JPOW Solar Services, LLC in April 2022. Under that agreement, HardHat supplied laborers including equipment operators, quality control personnel, safety staff, and logistics workers for the construction of a 95-megawatt photovoltaic solar energy facility in White County, Arkansas. The project owner was Happy Solar 1, LLC, and OSS-JPOW served as the general contractor. Jingoli Power, LLC was a co-owner of OSS-JPOW and had full engineering, procurement, and construction responsibilities on the project.
HardHat provided labor from April 2022 through October 24, 2023. OSS-JPOW never disputed owing the money but stopped responding to payment requests in 2023. HardHat also made a claim against the project's payment bond, issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which Liberty Mutual denied in March 2024, arguing that HardHat needed a contractor's license to pursue the claim a position HardHat strongly contested.
Injury
HardHat went unpaid on 20 invoices spanning June through October 2023, totaling $1,101,174.54. It alleged that OSS-JPOW received payment from Happy Solar 1 for the same labor but kept the money rather than paying HardHat.
Damages Sought
HardHat sought the unpaid principal of $1,101,174.54 from OSS-JPOW for breach of contract and restitution from both OSS-JPOW and Jingoli Power for unjust enrichment. HardHat also sought compensatory and punitive damages from both Defendants on its conversion claims, and attorney's fees and costs. Before trial, HardHat had also pursued a claim against the project's payment bond issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, but that claim and Liberty Mutual as a Defendant did not proceed to the jury trial. By the time the case went to trial in April 2026, the remaining Defendants were OSS-JPOW Solar Services, LLC and Jingoli Power, LLC only.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: HardHat Workforce Solutions, LLC
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Dorsey R. Carson, Jr. | Kathryn P. Goff | Nicholas J. Toca
Defendants: OSS-JPOW Solar Services, LLC | Jingoli Power, LLC
· Counsel for Defendants: Karen Baker | Ty Ramsey Bordenkircher | Mary Tipton Thalheimer
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
HardHat's counsel argued throughout the case that the Services Agreement clearly classified HardHat as a "labor supplier" not a subcontractor and that no Arkansas law required a labor staffing company to hold a contractor's license. Counsel pointed out that OSS-JPOW never filed a complaint with the Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board and had never disputed the $1,101,174.54 debt until Liberty Mutual raised the licensing argument. Plaintiff's counsel stressed that OSS-JPOW collected full payment from Happy Solar 1, which included amounts for the very labor HardHat provided, yet deliberately chose not to pay HardHat.
Claims
Breach of Contract Against OSS-JPOW
HardHat alleged OSS-JPOW breached the Services Agreement by refusing to pay $1,101,174.54 for labor performed and accepted on the project. OSS-JPOW did not dispute the amount owed at any point before the lawsuit, but later adopted the licensing defense raised by Liberty Mutual.
Unjust Enrichment Against Jingoli Power
HardHat argued that Jingoli Power, as a co-owner and key stakeholder of OSS-JPOW, received the benefit of HardHat's labor without paying for it. HardHat further alleged that Jingoli underfunded OSS-JPOW and siphoned money away from it, leaving OSS-JPOW unable to satisfy its obligations to HardHat.
Conversion Against Both Defendants
HardHat alleged that OSS-JPOW and Jingoli Power intentionally kept money they received from Happy Solar 1 — money that included payment for HardHat's labor — and used it for their own business purposes instead of paying HardHat. Because the alleged conduct was intentional, HardHat also sought punitive damages on this claim.
Counterclaim by OSS-JPOW
OSS-JPOW filed a breach of contract counterclaim against HardHat. It sought damages of its own, which HardHat denied and defeated at trial.
Defense
OSS-JPOW and Jingoli Power argued that HardHat was required to hold an Arkansas contractor's license because of the nature of the work it performed, and that without such a license, HardHat had no legal right to sue or file a lien. They relied on Arkansas Code Annotated Section 17-25-103, which bars unlicensed contractors from bringing suit to recover on construction contracts. The Defendants contended that the Services Agreement, while labeled a "labor supplier" arrangement, was in substance a subcontract for construction work, making the licensing requirement applicable. Liberty Mutual took the same position when it denied HardHat's bond claim in March 2024.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its verdicts on April 24, 2026, after five days of trial.
On HardHat's breach of contract claim against OSS-JPOW, the jury found in favor of HardHat but awarded zero damages.
On HardHat's conversion claim against OSS-JPOW, the jury found in favor of HardHat but awarded zero compensatory damages and zero punitive damages.
On HardHat's unjust enrichment claim against Jingoli Power, the jury found in favor of HardHat but awarded zero damages.
On HardHat's conversion claim against Jingoli Power, the jury found in favor of HardHat and awarded compensatory damages of $1,101,174.54 and punitive damages of $4,404,698.16 — a combined award of more than $5.5 million.
On OSS-JPOW's breach of contract counterclaim against HardHat, the jury found in favor of HardHat, awarding OSS-JPOW nothing.
However, on May 21, 2026, the Court issued an order vacating the jury verdicts on HardHat's conversion claims against both Defendants, wiping out the $1,101,174.54 in compensatory damages and the $4,404,698.16 in punitive damages that the jury had awarded against Jingoli Power. The final judgment, also entered on May 21, 2026, by United States District Judge Brian S. Miller, reflected the vacatur.
As a result, HardHat received judgment in its favor on its breach of contract claim against OSS-JPOW and its unjust enrichment claim against Jingoli Power, but with no monetary recovery on those claims. OSS-JPOW's counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice. The conversion verdicts and their accompanying damages were wiped out entirely.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
