### NO. 01 - 15 - 00867 - CV

______________________________________________________________________________ FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, T EXAS

______________________________________________________________________________ PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, L.L. C. & PENN VIRGINIA OIL AND GAS, L.P., Appellants. V. ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS N EX T FRIEND FOR XXXXXX XX XX XXXXX AND XXXXXXXX XX XX XXXXX , MINORS & JOHN PAUL ADAME, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS N EX T 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, T ex as 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 CO MES Appellee John Paul Adame , individually and as n ext friend for XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX, AND XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX , minors, and files this Appellees’ Response to Appellant s, 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: ACCEPTED 01-15-00867-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 9:11:19 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

### Introduction & Summary of Response 1. The trial court si gned an order denying appellant s ’ Motion to Compe l Arbitration and to Abate as to claims filed by Appellee John Paul Adame , individually and as n ext friend for his minor children, on September 11, 2015. A copy of this order is attached as Ex hibit “A”

. On October 12, 2015, the trial court si gned an order denying appellant s ’ Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying appellant s ’ Motion to Compel Arbitration

. A copy of this order is attached as Ex hibit “B” . This arbitration ruling is now pending before th e Court. 2. The trial court grante d appellants’ motion to compel arbitration and to abate a s 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 a s Ex hibit “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 Ex hibit “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. T ex . Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.021(c) provides that “An order compelling arbitration must include a stay of proceeding subject to Sectio n 171.025.” T ex . 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. T ex . Civ. P rac. & 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 (T ex . 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)). Th e court held that, “Additionally, the record indicates the three

- factor test for invoking the s ection 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 o f 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 allo wing 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 litig ation 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 Gonzale z, Jr . ’s arbitration. Appellants have failed to show any basis for a stay of the De La Garza and Adame litigation. P rayer

### Wherefore, premises c onsidered, appellees, John Paul Adame , XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX, AND XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX , minors, pray that this Court deny appellant s ’ 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, T ex as 78332 Telephone: (361) 664

- 7377 Facsimile: (361) 664

- 7245 Attorneys for Appellees John Paul Adame, Individually and as N ext Friend of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX

### 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, T ex as 76102 Via Email Mr. Thomas J. Smith Mr. Kelly C. Hartmann Ms. Al ex is M. Butler Hester Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith 1301 McKinney, Suite 400 Houston, T ex as 77010 Via Email Mr. Brit T. Brown Mr. Benjamin A. Escobar, Jr. Beirne, Maynard & Pars ons, L.L.P. 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500 Houston, T ex as 77056 Via Email Mr. J.J. Knauff The Miller Law Firm Turtle Creek Centre 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 1950 Dallas, T ex as 75219

# - CAUSE NO. 2014-42519
ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INDnnDUALLYandASNEXTFRIEND 

### § FOR 

### and 

### §

, 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 !Z0t:gUSGP and Defendant Oaks Personnel ffis d/bla 

### The Oaks 

### G:roup be 

### severed frem artd 

### p:roceed te trial 

### oft October 20f-5.



# FILED Chris Daniel District Clerk 

### 71.t- 

## S I 11


### EXHIBIT Elaine H. Palmer 

# I 

# A JUDGE, 215TH DISTRICT COURT

Order Denying Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate Page I ofl REDACTED REDACTEDI, 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:

Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 66994917 Total Pages: 1



### 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,...... 4-< 0 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 

### CAUSE NO. 2014-42519 ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY and AS 

### NEXT FRIEND FOR and

, minors


### v. PENN VIRGINIA OIL & 

### GAS, L.P., PENN VIRGINIA OIL & 

### GAS GP LLC, and MIKE FERGUSON § § § § § § § § § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

HARJUSCOUNTY,TEXAS

215th 

### JUDICIAL DISTRICT

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 Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. It 

### is further ordered that the statements in the Affidavit of Ernest W. Nelson regarding intent 

### Pgs-1 RECSY



### be stricken in their entirety. 

### EXHIBIT SIGNED AND ORDERED this the_ day 

### of October, 2015. 

# I 

# 'B Signed: 

### 10/12/2015

JUDGE PRESIDING

Order Denying Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP LLC's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration Page 1 of 1 REDACTED REDACTEDI, 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:

Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 67408422 Total Pages: 1



### 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.com11/3/2015 3:41:31 PM Chris Daniel- District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 7665857 By:SPENCER,JEANETTA Filed: 11/3/2015 3:41:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2014-42519 ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY and AS NEXT FRIEND FOR and

, 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 SERVICES, INC. and OAKS PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a THE OAKS GROUP § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

281 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT



### 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 Signed: be ABATED until the resolution of such arbitration. 11/24/2015 _· PRESIDING JUDGE 

### EXHIBIT 

# IC Pgs-1

REDACTED REDACTEDI, 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:

Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 67999138 Total Pages: 1



### 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.comCAUSE NO. 2014-42519 ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR AND , MINORS, Plaintiffs,

JOHN PAUL ADAME, INVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF

, MINORS Intervenor ERNESTO GONZALEZ, JR. Intervenor VS. 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 § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § 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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

215TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

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 REDACTED REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTEDOn 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

2(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

3the 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).

4For 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.

5Certificate 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.

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 /s/ Ana Laura Gutierrez Ana Laura Gutierrez

Galloway Johnson Tompkins Burr & Smith, PLC 1301 McKinney Street Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77010 Attorneysfor 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.

6