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 215th 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:

ACCEPTED

01-15-00867-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/28/2015 9:11:19 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 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
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
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
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 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

REDACTED
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: 

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: 

1 0/12/2015 

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

REDACTED
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: 

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.com 
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 

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

REDACTED
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: 

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.com 
CAUSE NO. 2014-42519 

ALFREDO DE LA GARZA, 

INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS NEXT FRIEND 

FOR 

AND , 

MINORS, 

Plaintiffs, 

JOHN PAUL ADAME, INVIDUALL Y 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

REDACTED
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 

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 

3 
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). 

4 
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. 

5 
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. 

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 

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. 

6