Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas L.P. v. Alfredo De La Garza, Individually and as Next Friend for I. D. L. G. and K. D. L. G., Minors, and John Paul Adame, Individually and A/N/F for C.A.A., J.P.A., Jr., and J.N.A.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 24, 2015·No. 01-15-00867-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-15-00867-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/24/2015 10:18:56 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

NO. 01-15-00867-CV

FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 11/24/2015 10:18:56 AM HOUSTON, TEXAS CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

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 OF FRIEND FOR XXXXXX XX XX XXXXX AND XXXXXXXX XX XX XXXXX, MINORS & JOHN PAUL ADAME, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND OF XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX, XXX, AND XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX, MINORS, Appellees.

On Appeal from the 215TH Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2014-42519

APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS

To the Honorable Justices of the First Court of Appeals:

Appellants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas,

L.P. (collectively “Penn Virginia”) file this Response to Appellee Alfredo De La

Garza’s Motion to Dismiss. In support thereof, Penn Virginia would respectfully

show this Honorable Court as follows:

1. In his Motion at paragraphs 5 and 6, Appellee argues that Penn

Virginia’s appeal should be dismissed because Penn Virginia filed its Notice of

Appeal outside of the 20 day deadline to do so under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 28.1, and that Penn Virginia failed to “reasonably explain the need for

an extension” in its Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. (See

Penn Virginia’s Motion for Extension of Time to File, attached as Exhibit A, and

Penn Virginia’s Reply to Appellees’ Objection, attached as Exhibit B.)

2. Rather than reiterate all of the arguments made and facts asserted in

Penn Virginia’s underlying Motion for Extension of Time to File and Penn

Virginia’s Reply to Appellees’ Objection to same, Penn Virginia would simply

direct this Court to those Motions and the affidavits submitted in support of same,

all of which are attached to this Response as Exhibits A and B, and which are on

file with this Court. Penn Virginia would show further that this Court has not

denied Penn Virginia’s Motion for Extension, therefore, there has been no judicial

determination that the Court lacks jurisdiction as a result of the date of filing. That

is to say, if this Court grants Penn Virginia’s Motion for Extension to File, then

Penn Virginia’s Notice of Appeal filed on October 13, 2015 will be considered

timely filed and there will be no question as to jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER

In light of the foregoing, Appellants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and

Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. pray that this Court deny Appellee’s Motion to

Dismiss. Penn Virginia further prays for such other and further relief, both special and

general, at law and in equity, to which it may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS BURR & SMITH

/s/ Thomas J. Smith Thomas J. Smith State Bar No. 00788934 tsmith@gallowayjohnson.com Kelly C. Hartmann State Bar No. 24055631 khartmann@gallowayjohnson.com Alexis B. Hester State Bar No. 24072807 ahester@gallowayjohnson.com 1301 McKinney, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 599-0700 (713) 599-0777 – facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC AND PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I have served the foregoing document upon the following attorneys by electronic service, personal mail, by commercial delivery service or by fax on November 24th, 2015:

John David Hart J. Javier Gutierrez LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART Ana Laura Gutierrez Wells Fargo Tower THE GUTIERREZ LAW FIRM, INC. 201 Main Street, Suite 1720 700 East Third Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Alice, Texas 78332 Phone 817-870-2102 Phone 361-664-7377 Fax 817-332-5858 Fax 361-664-7245 Counsel for Appellee, Alfredo Counsel for Appellee, John Paul De La Garza and his minor children Adame and his minor children

/s/ Kelly C. Hartmann Kelly C. Hartmann

ACCEPTED 01-15-00867-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/14/2015 4:27:54 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 OF FRIEND FOR XXXXXX XX XX XXXXX AND XXXXXXXX XX XX XXXXX, MINORS & JOHN PAUL ADAME, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND OF XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX, XXX, AND XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX, MINORS, Appellees.

On Appeal from the 215TH Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas Cause No. 2014-42519

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL

To the Honorable Justices of the First Court of Appeals:

Appellants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas,

L.P. (collectively “Penn Virginia”) file this Motion for Extension of Time to File

EXHIBIT "A"

Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rules 26.3 and 10.5(b)(2). In support thereof, Penn

Virginia would respectfully show this Honorable Court as follows:

I. FACTUAL SUMMARY

1. This appeal arises out of a September 11, 2015 Order denying

Appellant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate, which was filed in the

215th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.1 The underlying litigation,

which is currently set for trial on May 31, 2016, involves an April 29, 2014 oilfield

incident near Shiner, Texas, in which two employees of Nabors Completion &

Productions Services Co. (“NCPS”) were injured when an improperly constructed

high pressure flow line parted and caused the sudden release of pressurized gas.

The two employees (now, Appellees) were standing near the flow line when the

line separated. NCPS was a well site contractor that had been hired by Penn

Virginia, the operator, to perform workover operations. Both Appellees were

members of the NCPS day crew.

2. Nabors Industries, Inc. (“Nabors”) and its subsidiaries, one of which

is NCPS, have a valid arbitration program (known as the Nabors Dispute

Resolution Program or “DRP”) which requires that disputes involving injuries to

employees that are incurred during the course and scope of employment be

1 See Exhibit “A,” Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration.

submitted to final and binding arbitration. Appellees acknowledged and accepted

the terms of the DRP as a condition of their employment with NCPS.

3. The DRP applies to all direct and indirect subsidiaries of Nabors, all

current and former employees of the aforementioned subsidiaries, and any

“Electing Entity” that has agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement. Penn

Virginia is an “Electing Entity” and agreed on more than one occasion to be bound

by the terms of the DRP, first in a 2008 drilling contract and later in a 2010 drilling

contract. In Penn Virginia’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Abate, Penn

Virginia argued that Appellee’s individual claims fall within the scope of the DRP,

as both were employees of NCPS at the time of the incident and both allege that

their injuries occurred while in the course and scope of their employment.2

Because Penn Virginia is an Electing Entity to the Nabors DRP, Appellees’ claims

against Penn Virginia fall within the scope of the arbitration provisions set forth in

the DRP.

4. On June 18, 2015, Penn Virginia filed its Motion to Compel

Arbitration and Abate. The matter was set for hearing on July 31, 2015 but was

reset for September 11, 2015 after counsel for Appellee’s made requests for

various depositions and additional discovery relating to the arbitration agreement.

2 See “Exhibit B,” Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Following the hearing and on September 11, 2015, the trial court issued an Order

denying Penn Virginia’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

5. On October 1, 2015, Penn Virginia filed a Motion for Reconsideration

of the Court’s Order, and with it attached an Affidavit from Mr. Ernest Nelson,

Vice President of Contracts for Nabors, to address a latent ambiguity raised by the

Court during the hearing. The trial court heard the Motion for Reconsideration on

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas L.P. v. Alfredo De La Garza, Individually and as Next Friend for I. D. L. G. and K. D. L. G., Minors, and John Paul Adame, Individually and A/N/F for C.A.A., J.P.A., Jr., and J.N.A., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas L.P. v. Alfredo De La Garza, Individually and as Next Friend for I. D. L. G. and K. D. L. G., Minors, and John Paul Adame, Individually and A/N/F for C.A.A., J.P.A., Jr., and J.N.A. (Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas L.P. v. Alfredo De La Garza, Individually and as Next Friend for I. D. L. G. and K. D. L. G., Minors, and John Paul Adame, Individually and A/N/F for C.A.A., J.P.A., Jr., and J.N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Folse v. Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp.
56 F.3d 603 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
Southland Corp. v. Keating
465 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1984)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
514 U.S. 938 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams
532 U.S. 105 (Supreme Court, 2001)
In Re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.
195 S.W.3d 672 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Associated Glass, Ltd. v. Eye Ten Oaks Investments, Ltd.
147 S.W.3d 507 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. v. Eifert
2 S.W.3d 688 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Kilgore
871 S.W.2d 925 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Hernandez v. Lopez
288 S.W.3d 180 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias
934 S.W.2d 87 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Dallas Cardiology Associates, P.A. v. Mallick
978 S.W.2d 209 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
In Re Jim Walter Homes, Inc.
207 S.W.3d 888 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Dimotsis v. Lloyds
966 S.W.2d 657 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc.
774 S.W.2d 668 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps
842 S.W.2d 266 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Cantella & Co., Inc. v. Goodwin
924 S.W.2d 943 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. McCoy
944 S.W.2d 716 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Prudential Securities Inc. v. Marshall
909 S.W.2d 896 (Texas Supreme Court, 1995)