Case Information
*0 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 9:11:19 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 9:11:19 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 01-15-00867-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 9:11:19 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK NO. 01-15-00867-CV ______________________________________________________________________________
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS ______________________________________________________________________________
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, L.L.C. & PENN VIRGINIA OIL AND GAS, L.P.,
Appellants.
V.
ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR XXXXXX
XX XX XXXXX AND XXXXXXXX XX XX XXXXX, MINORS &
JOHN PAUL ADAME, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX, AND XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX,
MINORS,
Appellees.
______________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 215 th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2014-42519 ______________________________________________________________________________
APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO STAY UNDERLYING
TRIAL COURT LITIGATION ______________________________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES Appellee John Paul Adame, individually and as next friend for
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX, AND XXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXX, minors, and files this Appellees’ Response to Appellants, Penn Virginia
Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas L.P.’s Motion to Stay Underlying Trial Court
Litigation, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following:
Introduction & Summary of Response 1. The trial court signed an order denying appellants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and to
Abate as to claims filed by Appellee John Paul Adame, individually and as next friend for his
minor children, on September 11, 2015. A copy of this order is attached as Exhibit “A” .
On October 12, 2015, the trial court signed an order denying appellants’ Motion for
Reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying appellants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.
A copy of this order is attached as Exhibit “B” . This arbitration ruling is now pending
before the Court.
2. The trial court granted appellants’ motion to compel arbitration and to abate as to Intervenor
Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr. in the underlying lawsuit. This order was signed on November 24,
2015 and provided that Mr. Gonzalez’s claims would be abated. A copy of this order is
attached as Exhibit “C” . Intervenor Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr. has filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration. This motion is set for
hearing on January 15, 2016. A copy of this motion is attached as Exhibit “D” .
3. On December 8, 2015, appellants filed a motion to abate the De La Garza and Adame
appellees’ claims pending the Gonzalez arbitration.
4. The underlying litigation should not be stayed as to the De La Garza or Adame appellees.
The general rule provides that a stay will only be ordered when arbitration or a motion for
arbitration is granted by the trial court. While there are circumstances where parallel
litigation will be stayed as to a party not subject to arbitration, appellants have failed to meet
their burden to mandate a stay in this case. Appellants have failed to show that continuing the
underlying litigation as to the De La Garza and Adame appellees would in any way waste
judicial time or resources, create potentially damaging consequences to the Gonzalez
arbitration or interfere with the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction or the subject matter of this
appeal.
Argument and Authorities 5. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.021(c) provides that “An order compelling arbitration
must include a stay of proceeding subject to Section 171.025.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 171.025 states that :
(a) The court shall stay a proceeding that involves an issue subject to arbitration if an
order for arbitration or an application for that order is made under this subchapter.
(b) The stay applies only to the issue subject to arbitration if that issue is severable from
the remainder of the proceeding.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 171.025.
6. 9 U.S.C. § 3 provides that:
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any
issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court
in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or
proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one
of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance
with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in
proceeding with such arbitration.” 9 U.S.C.A. § 3.
In some circumstances, the courts have allowed for stays of underlying parallel litigation
brought by parties not subject to an arbitration agreement. In the case of In re Ghanem , 203
S.W.3d 896, 899 (Tex. App. 2006), the appellate court conditionally granted a writ of
mandamus as to a trial court’s order refusing to completely stay parallel litigation brought by
nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement. The Beaumont court focused on the potential harm
to the arbitration by allowing nonsignatories to arbitration agreements to proceed with
litigation and noted the policy favoring arbitration. The court also looked to whether
proceeding with litigation would destroy the signatory’s right to a meaningful arbitration,
citing Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Residuos Industriales Multiquim, S.A. de C.V., 372 F.3d 339, 343
(5th Cir.2004) (citing Adams v. Ga. Gulf Corp., 237 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir.2001)). The
court held that, “Additionally, the record indicates the three-factor test for invoking
the section 3 mandatory stay discussed in Waste Management, Inc. has been met, viz: (1)
similarity of operative facts; (2) inseparability of claims; and (3) effect of the litigation on the
arbitration. See Waste Mgmt., Inc., 372 F.3d at 344–45; 9 U.S.C.A. § 3.”
7. Appellants have not shown inseparability of claims between the Adame claims and Ernesto
Gonzalez, Jr.’s claims.
8. Appellants have failed to show any “potentially damaging consequences” to the Gonzalez
arbitration in allowing the De La Garza and Adame litigation to continue as is required in In
re Ghanem .
9. Appellants argue that it would be difficult for the parties to mediate meaningfully and
frustrate the resolution process absent a ruling from the Court of Appeals as to whether the
De La Garza and Adame litigation is subject to arbitration. There is no showing that
mediation would be more difficult or would “frustrate the resolution process” in this case.
Conclusion
10. Appellants have failed to meet their burden of proving that allowing the De La Garza and
Adame litigation to proceed would in any way affect, harm or adversely impact Ernesto
Gonzalez, Jr.’s arbitration. Appellants have failed to show any basis for a stay of the De La
Garza and Adame litigation.
Prayer
*5 Wherefore, premises considered, appellees, John Paul Adame, XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX, AND XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX,
minors, pray that this Court deny appellants’ motion to stay underlying trial court litigation and
for such other and further relief to which they may be entitled, whether in law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted, THE GUTIERREZ LAW FIRM, INC.
By: /S/ J. JAVIER GUTIERREZ J. Javier Gutierrez State Bar No. 24045997 javier@gutierrezlawfirm.com Ana Laura Gutierrez State Bar No. 24069843 ana@gutierrezlawfirm.com 700 East Third Street Alice, Texas 78332 Telephone: (361) 664-7377 Facsimile: (361) 664-7245 Attorneys for Appellees John Paul Adame, Individually and as Next Friend of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX *6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
instrument was forwarded to all counsel of record as listed below, by the method of service
indicated, on this the 28th day of December, 2015.
By: /S/ J. JAVIER GUTIERREZ J. Javier Gutierrez Via Email
Mr. John David Hart
Law Office of John David Hart
Wells Fargo Tower
201 Main St. Ste. 1720
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Via Email
Mr. Thomas J. Smith
Mr. Kelly C. Hartmann
Ms. Alexis M. Butler Hester
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins,
Burr & Smith
1301 McKinney, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77010
Via Email
Mr. Brit T. Brown
Mr. Benjamin A. Escobar, Jr.
Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77056
Via Email
Mr. J.J. Knauff
The Miller Law Firm
Turtle Creek Centre
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 1950
Dallas, Texas 75219
CAUSE NO. 2014-42519 ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDnnDUALLYandASNEXTFRIEND §
FOR REDACTED and §
REDACTED , minors §
§
v. §
§
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P., PENN §
VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP LLC, §
MIKE FERGUSON, TRIFECTA OILFIELD §
SERVICES, LLC, CUDD PRESSURE §
CONTROL, INC., ROYWELL § 215th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SERVICES, INC., and OAKS PERSONNEL §
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a THE OAKS GROUP § ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. AND PENN
VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO
ABATE On 1 J 17-f-- day of S -ep , 2015, came to be considered Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP_LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration
and to Abate. After considering the motion and hearing the arguments of counsel, this Court is of
the opinion that the Motion should be DENIEij iiRO that Plainti:Ws' claims against Defendant ffis d/bla The Oaks G:roup be severed frem artd !Z0t:gUSGP and Defendant Oaks Personnel
-
p:roceed te trial oft October 20f-5.
FILED S 71.t- I Chris Daniel District Clerk
I A EXHIBIT Elaine H. Palmer JUDGE, 215TH DISTRICT COURT
Order Denying Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP LLC's Page I ofl
Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this October 23. 2015
Certified Document Number: 66994917 Total Pages: 1
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com *9 1U/5/ZU15 1Z:ZZ:Z5 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 7226643 By:SPENCER,JEANETTA Filed: 10/5/2015 12:22:25 PM Pgs-1
CAUSE NO. 2014-42519 RECSY ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDIVIDUALLY and AS NEXT FRIEND § REDACTED
FOR and §
REDACTED , minors §
§
v. § HARJUSCOUNTY,TEXAS
§
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P., §
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP LLC, § 215th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
and MIKE FERGUSON § ORDER DENYING D·EFENDANTS, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. AND PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP LLC'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION On this the_ day of October, 2015, came to be heard and considered Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP LLC's Motion for Reconsi.deration of
Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration in the above-styled and nu1nbered cause, and the
Court having considered said motion and response is of the opinion that the motion should be in all
things DENIED.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP LLC's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying
,...... 4-< Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. It is further ordered that the statements in the Affidavit of Ernest W. Nelson regarding intent EXHIBIT
be stricken in their entirety. I 'B
SIGNED AND ORDERED this the_ day of October, 2015.
Signed: 1 0/12/2015 JUDGE PRESIDING Order Denying Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP LLC's Page 1 of 1 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in 1ny office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this October 23. 2015
Certified Document Number: 67408422 Total Pages: 1
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com *11 11/3/2015 3:41:31 PM Chris Daniel- District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 7665857 By:SPENCER,JEANETTA Filed: 11/3/2015 3:41:31 PM Pgs-1
CAUSE NO. 2014-42519 ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDIVIDUALLY and AS NEXT FRIEND § REDACTED
FOR and §
REDACTED , minors §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P., §
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC, §
MIKE FERGUSON, TRIFECTA §
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, CUDD §
PRESSURE CONTROL, INC., §
ROYWELL SERVICES, INC. and OAKS §
PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a § 281 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THE OAKS GROUP §
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. AND PENN VIRGINIA
OIL & GAS GP, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO ABATE
CLAIIVIS FILED BY INTERVENOR, ERNESTO GONZALEZ, JR. On the __ day of __ _____ , 2015, the Court considered Defendants Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration
and to Abate the claims filed by Intervenor, Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr., pending such arbitration.
After considering the motion, this Court GRANTS Defendants Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P.
and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC' s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate.
Therefore, Intervenor, Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr., is ORDERED to arbitrate his claims against Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC in accordance with the
Nabors Dispute Resolution Program.
It is further ORDERED that the claim asserted by Intervenor, Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr., shall be ABATED until the resolution of such arbitration. Signed:
11/24/2015 _· PRESIDING JUDGE EXHIBIT IC *12 I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy of the original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this December 28. 2015
Certified Document Number: 67999138 Total Pages: 1
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com *13 12/2/2015 4:28:28 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 8060281 By: bradley darnell Filed: 12/2/2015 4:28:28 PM CAUSE NO. 2014-42519
ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
INDIVIDUALLY §
AND AS NEXT FRIEND § REDACTED
FOR § REDACTED
AND , §
MINORS, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
§
JOHN PAUL ADAME, INVIDUALL Y AND § REDACTED
AS NEXT FRIEND OF §
REDACTED §
, MINORS §
Intervenor §
§
ERNESTO GONZALEZ, JR. §
Intervenor §
§
VS. 215TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT §
§
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P.; PENN §
VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, L.L.C.; §
MIKE FERGUSON; TRIFECTA OILFIELD §
SERVICES, L.L.C.; CUDD PRESSURE §
CONTROL, INC.; AND ROYWELL §
SERVICES, INC.; OAKS PERSONNEL INC., §
D/B/A THE OAKS GROUP §
Defendants HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
ERNESTO GONZALEZ, JR.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Intervenor, Emesto Gonzalez, Jr. ("Gonzalez"), respectfully files this Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's order granting Defendants Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP,
LLC & Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P.'s (collectively "Penn Virginia") Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Abate Claims filed by Intervenor Emesto Gonzalez, Jr. In support of this
Motion for Reconsideration, Intervenor Gonzalez would respectfully show as follows:
EXHIBIT I D
1 *14 On June 18, 2015, Penn Virginia filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Abate the claims of Plaintiffs Alfredo De La Garza, individually and as next friend of his
minor children, and Intervenor John Paul Adame, individually and as next friend of his
minor children (hereinafter referred to as "First Motion to Compel"). In their First Motion
to Compel, Penn Virginia argued that Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame's
claims are subject to arbitration because (1) Penn Virginia agreed to participate in Nabors
Industries, Inc.'s (Nil) Dispute Resolution Program ("DRP"), which purports to require
arbitration, as "Electing Entities"; and (2) Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame
are signatories to an agreement to participate in Nil's DRP as well. Among the
documents that Penn Virginia cited to support their argument were a 2008 contract
between Penn Virginia L.P. (PVLP) and Nabors Drilling USA, LP (NDUSA); a 2010
contract between Penn Virginia MC, Energy LLC (PVMC) and NDUSA; and an affidavit
signed by Ernest W. Nelson, dated September 11, 2015 in which Mr. Nelson makes
statements regarding Penn Virginia's "intent" regarding the 2008 and 2010 contracts.
Plaintiff and Intervenor Adame filed responses to Penn Virginia's First Motion to
Compel in which they argued that their claims against Penn Virginia were not subject to
arbitration. Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame argued that Plaintiff De La
Garza and Intervenor Adame were not parties to the DRP because the parties to the DRP
were: (1) PVLP and PVMC, and their parent, subsidiary and affiliated corporations, as
well as the employees, officers and directors of each; and (2) the present and former
employees and applicants of NIL Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame further
argued that Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame were not employees or
applicants of Nil, but were employees of Nabors Completion and Production Services
(NCPS). At the time of the incident that is the basis of Plaintiff De La Garza's and
Intervenor Adame's claims, NCPS was a separate entity of Nil, and NCPS and Nil were
both subsidiaries of Nabors Industries Ltd. ("NID"). Plaintiff De La Garza and
Intervenor Adame also objected to the affidavit of Ernest W. Nelson because any
evidence of intent violates the parol evidence rule, as parol evidence is only admissible if
a contract is ambiguous, and there was no showing that either contract was ambiguous.
Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame further argued that the contract that covers
the work performed on the date of the incident is a Master Service Contract (MSC) that
was entered into on March 28, 2013 between Penn Virginia Oil and Gas Corporation
("PVOG"), PVLP, PVMC and Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame's employer
NCPS. An oral hearing was conducted on September 11, 2015 and this Court issued an
order denying Penn Virginia's First Motion. Penn Virginia then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 1, 2015.
Attached to Penn Virginia's Motion for Reconsideration, was another affidavit from
Ernest W. Nelson dated October 1, 2015, which again purported to explain Penn
Virginia's "intent" with regard to the 2008 and 2010 contracts. On October 12, 2015 this
Court signed an order denying Penn Virginia's Motion for Reconsideration and further
ordered that the statements in the Affidavit of Ernest W. Nelson regarding intent be
stricken in their entirety.
On November 3, 2015 Penn Virginia filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate Claims filed by Intervenor Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr. This motion was virtually
identical to Penn Virginia's First Motion to Compel. Attached to Penn Virginia's Motion
to Compel Arbitration and to Abate Claims filed by Intervenor Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr., was
the same affidavit dated October 1, 2010 signed by Ernest W. Nelson, containing the
same statements regarding "intent" that this Court previously ordered be stricken in their
entirety. Intervenor Gonzalez timely filed a Response, which made the same arguments
as Plaintiffs De La Garza and Intervenor Adame made in their response to Penn
Virginia's First Motion to Compel. An oral hearing was conducted November 20, 2015.
On November 22, 2015 this Court issued an order granting Penn Virginia's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Abate Claims filed by Intervenor Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr.
This Court's order granting Penn Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate the claims of Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr. produces a result that is inconsistent with this
Court's previous ruling on Penn Virginia's First Motion to Compel. It would be unfair
for Intervenor Gonzalez to be compelled to arbitration and for his claims to be abated
because Plaintiff De La Garza, Intervenor Adame, and Intervenor Gonzalez are
identically situated with regard to their claims. Intervenor Gonzalez was a coworker of
Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor Adame at the time of the incident, was also an
employee ofNCPS, and he was also injured during the same incident. As such, the issue
of whether or not their claims are subject to arbitration should be treated identically.
Furthermore, Penn Virginia did not present any arguments in their Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Abate the claims of Intervenor Gonzalez that were not considered in Penn
Virginia's First Motion to Compel. Intervenor Gonzalez urges this Court to follow the
precedent that was set when this Court ruled that Plaintiff De La Garza and Intervenor
Adame's claims are not subject to arbitration, as there is a strong presumption that
precedents should be followed to foster efficiency, fairness and legitimacy. Weiner v.
Wasson, 900 S.W.2d 316, 320 (Tex. 1995).
For the reasons set forth in Intervenor Gonzalez's Response to Penn Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate Claims filed by Intervenor Emesto Gonzalez,
Jr., Intervenor Gonzalez respectfully requests that the Court reconsider the pleadings, the
evidence set forth therein, and the arguments made by Intervenor Gonzalez.
PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Intervenor Emesto Gonzalez, Jr. would urge this court to reconsider its order granting Penn Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to
Abate Claims Filed by Intervenor Emesto Gonzalez, Jr. Should this Court grant
Intervenor Gonzalez's Motion for Reconsideration, Intervenor Gonzalez would urge the
Court to reverse its decision and issue an order denying Penn Virginia's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and to Abate Claims filed by Intervenor Emesto Gonzalez, Jr.
Intervenor Gonzalez also requests all other and further relief, both special and general, at
law and in equity, to which it may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ana Laura Gutierrez Ana Laura Gutierrez State Bar No. 24069843 ana@gutierrezlawfirm.com J. Javier Gutierrez State Bar No.
j avier@gutierrezlawfirm.com THE GUTIERREZ LAW FIRM 700 E. Third Street Alice, Texas 78332 (361) 664-7377 Telephone (361) 664-7245 Facsimile Attorneys for Intervenor Emesto Gonzalez, Jr.
Certificate of Conference I certify that I have conferred via email with Alexis B. Hester, counsel for Defendants Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC & Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P ., and she
has stated that they are opposed to this Motion.
/s/ Ana Laura Gutierrez Ana Laura Gutierrez Certificate of Service
The undersigned attorney does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to all counsel of record as listed below, by the
method of service indicated, on this 2nd day of December, 2015.
/s/ Ana Laura Gutierrez Ana Laura Gutierrez Via Email
John David Hart
Law Office of John David Hart
Wells Fargo Tower
201 Main St. Ste. 1720
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Attorney For Plaintiffs
Via Email
Alexis M. Butler
Thomas J. Smith
Galloway Johnson Tompkins Burr & Smith, PLC
1301 McKinney Street
Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77010
Attorneys for Defendants Penn Virginia, Trifecta Oilfield Services, LLC, Mike Ferguson,
The Oaks Group, and Roywell Services, Inc.
Via Email
Benjamin A. Escobar Jr.
Brit T. Brown
Beirne Maynard & Parsons, LLP
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 2500
Houston, Texas 77056
Attorneys For Defendant Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.