This is an email
=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=

What is the subject of this email?
RSM v. El Paso