Message-ID: <16602609.1075858694856.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:48:24 -0800 (PST)
From: britt.davis@enron.com
To: andrew.edison@enron.com, b..sanders@enron.com
Subject: RSM v. El Paso
Cc: charles.cheek@enron.com, robert.vote@enron.com, becky.zikes@enron.com, 
	lisa.robichaux@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bcc: charles.cheek@enron.com, robert.vote@enron.com, becky.zikes@enron.com, 
	lisa.robichaux@enron.com
X-From: Davis, Britt </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BDAVIS>
X-To: Edison, Andrew </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Aedison>, Sanders, Richard B. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rsander>
X-cc: Cheek, Charles </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ccheek>, Vote, Robert </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Bvote>, Zikes, Becky </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Bzikes>, Robichaux, Lisa </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Lrobich>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged)\Sanders, Richard B.\Inbox
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged).pst


=09I have not heard back from Lazaro as to our request for an extension of =
time.  I left a call for him today, asking him to call me back tomorrow mor=
ning.

=09I have received a copy of the Court's file from Lazaro by letter dated O=
ctober 26.  It is thin, but indicates that this suit clearly fit within the=
 framework of a larger strategy by Grynberg involving Quinque.  Keep in min=
d that what we have been served is a first supplemental petition:

=091.  There is an original petition that was filed July 15, 1999, which pu=
rports to be a class action suit on behalf of Zapata County and all other s=
imilarly situated counties and parishes in the United States of America for=
 deliquent ad valorem taxes and other damages.  Although I have not compare=
d the original petition in Zapata County with the petition in Quinque, both=
 the list of defendants and allegations of mismeasurement appear to be the =
same.  The plaintiff's attorneys seem to be the same.  Although I have not =
compared the original Zapata petition with the first supplemental Zapata pe=
tition, I see no mention of RSM Production or the Zapata County Independent=
 School District in the original petition, although both appear in the firs=
t supplemental petition.  There is no class action allegation in the supple=
mental petition (although it does mention gas produced in Zapata county and=
, cryptically, in other counties).  I have never seen a "supplemental" plea=
ding that dropped class action allegations and defendants, and added plaint=
iffs.  The first supplemental petition is more correctly titled an amended =
petition.  Perhaps the plaintiff's attorney had a reason for not calling at=
tention to the radical change in the nature of a lawsuit.

=092.  On March 21, 2000, the Court issued an order on plaintiff's verified=
 motion to retain case.  The order was based on a motion by plaintiff for i=
tself and all other similarly situated counties, alleging that the same gro=
up of defendants had been sued in Quinque and removed the case.  "Judicial =
economy will result in the present action by waiting for a ruling in the Ka=
nsas litigation, thus avoiding the same procedural motions in this case."  =
Plaintiff moved for and was granted abatement of the case for 6 months unti=
l September 21, 2000 or until 30 days after a ruling on the motion for rema=
nd in the Kansas litigation, whichever comes first. =20
 =20
=093.  On March 12, 2001 (almost a year later than item #2), one of plainti=
ff's counsel, the law firm of Farnsworth and Von Berg, L.L.P., here in Hous=
ton, moved to withdraw as counsel for non-payment of fees by Jack Grynberg.=
  The motion notes as follows:  "In November 1999, following filing of this=
 lawsuit, Movants and Jack Grynberg and RSM Corporation, as representative =
of Zapata County Independent School District, severed their attorney/client=
 relationship because Jack Grynberg failed to pay attorney fees as per thei=
r contractual agreement."  There is nothing in the file reflecting even a p=
roposed order, much less a hearing on the motion.

=094.  The Court's docket sheet indicates that on August 30, 2001, the case=
 was called again by the Court and "reset for 9-27-01" (I am assuming that =
this is for another DWOP docket).

=095.  On September 25, plaintiffs filed their first supplemental petition =
by fax.

=096.  On September 27, the case was called before Judge Robert R. Eschenbu=
rg, and Jose A. Lopez (one of the plaintiff's attorneys) attended, and a sc=
heduling order was to be filed.

=097.  On October 1, about 20 citations were issued on various defendants.

=098.  On October 19, a letter to Jose Lopez from Margaret Timmons was file=
d.  The file sent to me does not contain a copy.

=099.  On October 22, the Court's docket literally shows that citation was =
served on Enron Gas Marketing, Inc., "Not executed."  I think that means th=
at the return of service on Enron Gas Marketing Inc. was filed.

=09I will make copies and have them distributed.

=09Britt