Court Opinion

ID: 4073762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 04:23:32.141768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:06:09.091020
License: Public Domain

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

October 12, 2015, and denied the Reconsideration on that same day.

                            II. ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES

       6.     Penn Virginia now moves this Court of Appeals for an extension of

time to file its Notice of Appeal in light of the Motion for Reconsideration that was

presented to the Court and denied on October 12, 2015.3

       7.     Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 states that “the appellate

court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the

deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party: “(a) files in the trial court the

notice of appeal; and (b) files in the appellate court a motion complying with Rule

10.5(b).”4 Rule 10.5(b)(2) provides the pleading requirements for a motion to

extend time to file a Notice of Appeal. Under Rule 10.5(b)(2), appellant must

3
  See “Exhibit C,” Motion for Reconsideration and “Exhibit D,” Order Denying Motion for
Reconsideration.
4
  See Exhibit “E,” a File Stamped Copy of Penn Virginia’s Notice of Appeal, which was filed
with the trial court on October 13, 2015.
provide the deadline for filing “the item in question;” (in this case, the Notice of

Appeal); “the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension;”

identification of the trial court, “the date of the trial court’s judgment or appealable

order, and the case number and style of the case in trial court.”

       8.      In this instance, Penn Virginia’s deadline to file the Notice of Appeal

would have been twenty days from September 11, 2015, pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 28.1. Twenty days from September 11, 2015 was October 1,

2015. If this Motion is granted, the extended deadline will fall on October 16,

2015. There have been no other requests for extension of time to file this Notice of

Appeal. The trial court’s judgment or appealable order was entered on September

11, 2015, and the case number and style of the case in the trial court is as follows:

Cause No. 2014-42519, Alfredo De La Garza, Individually and as Next Friend for

xxxxxx xx xx xxxxx and xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxx, minors v. 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., Roywell Services, Inc., and Oaks

Personnel Services, Inc. d/b/a The Oaks Group.5

       9.      The facts relied on to explain the need for an extension include the

following:

5
 It is relevant to note that Appellees non-suited all defendants but for Penn Virginia and the
Penn Virginia Company Man, Mike Ferguson.
- At the September 11, 2015 hearing, the Court noted that it would deny

   the Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate because the contracts

   entered into between Penn Virginia and Nabors in which Penn Virginia

   became an Electing Entity to the Nabors DRP contemplated application

   to “past and present” employees. The trial court reasoned that because

   neither of the Appellees were past or present employees of NCPS at the

   time the contracts were entered into, Penn Virginia’s status as an Electing

   Entity did not apply to the dispute between Appellees and Penn Virginia,

   and therefore the DRP did not apply.

- On October 1, 2015, Penn Virginia filed a Motion for Reconsideration in

   which it presented the Affidavit of Ernest Nelson who, as set forth above,

   is the Vice President of Contracts for Nabors. Mr. Nelson entered into

   one of the contracts with Penn Virginia on behalf of Nabors and has

   personal knowledge as to the intent of Nabors when it prepared the

   agreements.

- In the Motion for Reconsideration, Penn Virginia argues that the

   language providing that “Penn Virginia is an Electing Entity as to all

   disputes with ‘present and former employees and applicants of Nabors,’”

   must be read to mean that Penn Virginia is an Electing Entity “as to all
   disputes involving present and former employees at the time the dispute

   arises,” and not at the time the contract was entered into. In other words,

   “Penn Virginia’s status as an Electing Entity is not limited to present and

   former employees as of 2008 or 2010” (the time the underlying contracts

   were entered into) but instead “applies as to all persons who are present

   Nabors employees or former Nabors employees at the time of the

   dispute.”

- In this case, the dispute arose between Penn Virginia and Appellees on

   April 29, 2014, at which time both injured parties were NCPS employees.

   Because Penn Virginia became an Electing Entity to the Nabors Dispute

   Resolution Program in 2008 and again in 2010, the DRP applies as to the

   dispute between Penn Virginia and Appellees.

- Counsel for Penn Virginia mistakenly believed that the deadline to file its

   Notice of Appeal from the Order denying the Motion to Compel

   Arbitration was thirty days from September 11, 2015. Counsel

   determined after the actual deadline had passed that the appealable Order

   was an accelerated appeal and that Penn Virginia in fact had twenty days

   from the date of the September 11, 2015 Order. Penn Virginia now files
            its Notice of Appeal and this Motion to Extend the Deadline to file its

            Notice of Appeal by fifteen days from October 1, 2015.

      10.      The failure to file a Notice of Appeal on October 1, 2015 was not

deliberate or done in attempt to circumvent the Texas Rules. Counsel for Penn

Virginia had a good faith belief that the deadline to file its Notice of Appeal of the

Order denying the Motion to Compel Arbitration fell thirty days from the date of

the September 11, 2015 Order, pursuant to Rule 26.1. Thus, counsel believed that

the deadline to file was October 12, 2015 (as October 11, 2015 fell on a Sunday).

In light of counsel’s erroneous understanding of the deadline, it was Penn

Virginia’s belief that it could file the Motion for Reconsideration, proceed to oral

argument on the morning of October 12, 2015, and immediately and timely file the

Notice of Appeal from the original September 11, 2015 judgment if the Court then

denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

      11.      In actuality, an appeal from an Order denying a Motion to Compel

Arbitration is, pursuant to Rule 28.1(a), an accelerated appeal, which permits only

twenty days to file the Notice of Appeal. Following counsel’s research as to

available remedies, Penn Virginia has made all available and good faith efforts to

seek an extension under Rule 10.5(b)(2) to file its Notice of Appeal.
      12.    Before counsel became aware of the actual and correct deadline,

counsel believed it was in Penn Virginia’s best interest to allow the trial court to

consider the Affidavit of Ernest Nelson and evaluate the Motion for

Reconsideration before the Notice of Appeal was filed. Counsel further believed

(in error) that the “thirty day deadline” would permit the trial court to review the

Motion for Reconsideration and evaluate the Affidavit presented prior to divesting

the trial court of its jurisdiction. Given the trial court’s expression of concern at the

September 11, 2015 hearing as to the “ambiguity” set forth above, Penn Virginia

believed that the Motion for Reconsideration might resolve the issues the trial

court took with the Motion to Compel Arbitration and that, if not, the Notice of

Appeal could be timely filed immediately following the October 12 hearing.

      13.    Penn Virginia should be permitted to pursue its appeal and would

request that this Court of Appeals exercise its discretionary authority to allow Penn

Virginia to file its Notice of Appeal within fifteen days after the October 1, 2015

deadline. As this Court is no doubt aware, there is a strong presumption in Texas

favoring arbitration. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S. Ct. 1302 (2001);

Cantella & Co. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. 1996); Jack B. Anglin v. Tipps,

842 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. 1992). If a valid arbitration agreement exists, and the

claims are within the agreement’s scope, a trial court has no discretion and must
compel arbitration. Cantella, 924 S.W.2d at 944; Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v.

Kilgore, 871 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 1994, orig.

proceeding).

      14.      Penn Virginia did not deliberately, strategically, or intentionally delay

in filing its Notice of Appeal in an effort to subvert the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure or engage in any gamesmanship with the trial court. Instead, counsel for

Penn Virginia mistakenly believed the deadline to file its Notice of Appeal fell on

October 12, 2015 rather than October 1, 2015. Penn Virginia believed that, with

the thirty-day deadline, it would have the opportunity to address the trial court’s

specific concerns as to a particular and nuanced ambiguity in the contracts between

Penn Virginia and Nabors. Penn Virginia should not be penalized for the errors

made by its counsel and would request the opportunity to litigate the issues set

forth in its Motion to Compel Arbitration, particularly the application of the

arbitration provisions set forth in the Nabors DRP.

                                       PRAYER

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

Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. pray that this Court grant this Motion to Extend the

Deadline to File a Notice of Appeal and permit Penn Virginia to present to this Court

its arguments and authorities in support of arbitration. 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,

                                                /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
                                                GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS
                                                  BURR & SMITH
                                                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 CONFERENCE

      As required by Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I have conferred
with counsel for Appellees, both of whom indicated that they are opposed to this
Motion.

                                                /s/ Kelly C. Hartmann__________
                                                Kelly C. Hartmann
                        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 October 14, 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,
                                        and Intervenor, Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr.

                                           /s/ Kelly C. Hartmann
                                           Kelly C. Hartmann
                                     NO.

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                    HOUSTON' TEXAS

 PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, L.L.C. & PENN VIRGINIA OIL AND
                                   GAS L.P., Appellants.
                                              v.
ALF'REDO DE LA GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF' F'RIEND
                                                  MINORS
                                               &
 JOHN PAUL AD                     INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND OF
                                                                                AND
                                                        MTNORS,
                                          Appellees.

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

                          Vnnrrrc¡,TroN oF Tnonn¿,s J. Snnrrn

STATE OF TEXAS                $
                              $
COUNTY OF HARRIS              $

       BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared Thomas        J.

Smith, who after being duly swom upon his oath stated as f'ollows:

       1.      "My name is Thomas J. Smith. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age. I arn of

sound mind and in all ways competent to make this affidavit and verification,
        2.      I   am one of the attomeys of record for Defendants, Perur Virginia   Oil & Gas, L.P.

and Penn Virginia      Oil & Gas GP, LLC. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this

affidavit and those facts are true and correct.

        3.      I   have reviewed the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to Fil                    of

Appeal. In my personal knowledge, the Motion truly and correctly recites                      allegations

set forth in the pleading,"

                                                                  Smifh

        STIBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me a notary public, which witness my hand
                      ffiuV of October, 201 5
and seal of this office this

                                                                     1n   and for the State     Texas
                                    ROSYN S, MORGAN
                                NolÕry Puþlic, Slole ol lexos
                                  Mv Cornmrssron Explres
                                       JulY 30, 20.l I
                                                                                                                      r-l
                                                      CAUSE NO. 2014-42519
                                                                                                                       tfn'ç
                                                                                                                             Pfrlt   tl
              ALFREDO DE LA GARZA,                                             $          IN TIIE DISTRICT COURT OX'
                              ASNEXT Ì'RIEND                                   $
              FOR                   and                                        $
                                   tnlnors                                     $
                                                                               $
              v                                                                $          IIARRIS COUNTY,TEXAS
                                                                               $
              PEI\N VIRGINIA OIL & cAS, L.P., PEI\N                            $
              yIRGTNIA OIL & cAS cP LLC,
                                                                               $
              MIKE X'DRGUSON, TRIX'ECTA OILFIELn                               $
              SERVICES, LLC, CUDD PRESSURE                                     $
              CONTROL,INC., ROYWELL                                            $          215th   JUDICIAL DISTRICT
              SERVICES, INC., and OAKS PERSOII¡IEL                             $
              SERVICES, INC. d/b/a TIIE OAKS GROUP                             $

                  ORDER DEI\¡-YING DEFENDA¡ITS, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. AND PENN
                  VIRGIMA OIL &  GA.S GP LLC'S MOTION TO COIVIPEL ARBITRATION AND TO
                                                                ABATE

                      On ll#           day   of STt^!               .2015, came to be considered Defendants, Penn

              Virginia Oil & Gas, L,P. and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP.LLC's Motion to Compel A¡bitration

              and to Abate. After considering the motion and hearing the arguments of counsel, this Court is                  of
              the opinionthatthe Motion shouldbe           DENIE?

              Fe¡g$cen
                         "ttd
                                nefgtrdurt.Qgj<* Pc¡sorulet Serv'ecs¡    he        .l/h/e Tbe   lì@
    qr
     o                                                 .
     0
     bo
     (d
    À
    t-.
    O'
    rt
                  F'HL&:Ð
                   Ghris Daniel                                        V.t-
    o\
    q               Distrlct Clerk
                                                SIGNED this                    day   of                    2015
---\D-"-'-t
    \n
   å->
   ãËt
                   SEP I
   #
   ry6

   Få'ff:                                                       H.
   ELEEì                                                   JUDGE,   2 I 5TI{   DISTRICT COURT
   ffie
   HEE
' Ë<8
  cr: rú
  6E
   ôG
    rË
    'Ë
              order Denying Defendants, Penn virginia oil & Gaq L.P. and Penn Virginia oil & Gas Gp LLC's         Page   I   ofl
     O¡       Motion to Compel Arbiüation and to Abate
    U
                                                            EXHIBIT "A"
               oç

     I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
     County, Texas certify that this ís a true and
     correct copy ofthe original record filed and or
     recorded in my office, elechonically or hard
     copy, as it appears on this date.
     'Witness
              my official hand and seal of office
      this October 13.2015

     Certified Document   Number:       66994917 Totp! Pages:   I

     t^Lø¿r¿
     Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
     IIARRIS COUNÏY, TEXAS

In accordance with Texas Govcrnment Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validify of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com
                                                                                                      6/1 8/2015 4:58:00 PM
                                                                                 Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
                                                                                                     Envelope No. 5739243
                                                                                                              By: <>
                                                                                               Filed: 6/1 8/201 5 4:58:00 PM

                                    CAUSE NO. 2014-42519

ALFREDO DE LA GARZA,                                 $            IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDIVIDUALLY and AS NEXT FRIEND                      $
FOR                  A and                           $
                              , mlnors               $
                                                     $
v                                                    $               HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                     $
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P.,                       $
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC,                     $
MIKE FERGUSON, TRIFECTA                              $
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, CITDD                        $
PRES SURE CONTROL, [NIC.,                            $
ROYWELL SERVICES,INC. and OAKS                       $
PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/A                       $
THE OAKS GROUP                                       $                281ST   ruDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. AND PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS
      GP. LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEI , ARRITRATION AND TO ARATE

       Defendants, Penn Virginia    Oil &     Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia     Oil & Gas GP, LLC

(collectively referred to hereinafter as "Penn Virginia" unless individual reference is necessary)

file this Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate pending such arbitration. In support thereof,

Penn Virginia would show as follows:

                                     I.INTRODUCTION

       l.      Plaintiff, Alfredo "Freddie" De La Garza ("Plaintiff' or "De La Garza"),

Individually and as Next Friend     of                          and                                 ,   and

Intervenor, John Paul "J.P." Adame ("Adame"), Individually and as Next Friend             of

                                                                  , (collectively "the parties") filed

personal injury claims against Penn Virginia on Jruly 24, 2014 and, November                   6,   2014,

respectively. Their claims arise out of an   April 29,2014 incident, which occurred at a well site

                                         EXHIBIT "B''
located near Shiner, Texas while De La Garua and Adame were working in the course and scope

of their employment with Nabors Completion & Production Co. ("NCPS").

         2.        Nabors Industries, Inc. ("Nabors") and its subsidiaries, one of which is NCPS,

have a valid arbitration agreement which requires that disputes involving injuries to employees

that are incurred during the course and scope of employment be submitted to final and binding

arbitration. De La Garza and Adame both acknowledged and accepted the terms                                   of   the

arbitration agreement.

         3.        The arbitration agreement 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.r Penn Virginia is an "Electing Entity"

and has agreed on more than one occasion to be bound by the terms of the agreement.2 De La

Garza's and Adame's individual claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement as both

were employees of NCPS at the time of the incident and allege that their injuries occurred while

in the course and scope of their employment. De La Garza and Adame also filed claims                               as

representatives     of their minor children. The minors' claims are also subject to the arbitration

agreement as they are derivative of De            La Garza and Adame's claims. Consequently, De La

Garza and Adame's individual claims against Penn Virginia and the claims filed on behalf                           of

their minor children all fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

         4.        Therefore, Penn Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted, and

this case should be abated or dismissed and compelled to final and binding arbitration.

I See Nabors Dispute Resolution Program      ("DRP'), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit l-4.
2
  See 2008 Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP IADC Contract, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-
B; see also Contractors Special Proyisions, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-C, at I 16
"Operator, its parent, subsidiary and affiliated corporations, as well as the employees, officers and directors ofeach
(collectively, "Operator") is cognizant of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program and wishes to become an Electing
Entity, as defined in that Program." See also 2010 Penn Virginia MC Energy, LLC IADC Contract, a true and
correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit l-D; see also Contractors Specíøl Provisions, a true and correct copy of
which is attached as Exhibit 1-E, at fl 16.
                                                  II.I.INDISPUTED FACTS

             5.         Nabors is the "Sponsor" of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program (ooDRP"),                  as

that term is defined by the DRP.3

             6.         The DRP is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FA"{").4

             7.         By its terms, the Nabors DRP is designed to provide a means for the resolution of

disputes between the "Company" and the Company's present and former employees that are

related to or that arise out of a current or former employment relationship with the Company.s

             8.         The DRP is intended to create an exclusive procedural mechanism for the final

resolution of all disputes falling within its terms.6 Consequently, the DRP requires that all

disputes between De La Garza, Adame and the Company are subject to binding arbitration.T

             9.         The DRP defines "Dispute" to include personal injuries that are incurred at the

worþlace or in the course and scope of employment.s

             10.        The DRP defines "Company" as "Sponsor and every direct and indirect

subsidiary...ofSponsor,@',,9Aspreviouslymentioned,Naborsisthe

3 Al/idavit of Keith Nicholson ("Nicholson Alf."), a true and coraect copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1, atl4;
see also Exhibit I -4, at fl 2(L).
a SeeExhibit 1-A at
                      fl fl 2(C) and 8. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. $ 2, applies in state courts and preempts
state anti-arbitration laws to the contrary. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S. Ct. 1302; Southland Corp v.
Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 16 (1984); see also Palm Harbor Homes v. McCoy, 944 S.W.2d 716, 721 (Tex. App.-Fort
Worth 1997) (holding that FAA preempted Texas Arbitratìon Act's requirement that party's attorney sign
agreement). Although the FAA preempts state arbitration laws, courts still must resort to general state law contract
principles to determine whether an arbitration agreement will be enforced.
5,Se¿ Exhibit l-4, at fl L
6 See Exhibit l-4, at fl l.
7.See Exhibit l-4.
8 "Dispute" means all legal and equitable claims, demand and controversies, of whatever nature or kind, whether in
contract, tort, under statute or regulation, or some other law, between persons bound by the Program or by an
agreement to resolve Disputes under the Program, or between a person bound by the Program and a person or entity
otherwise entitled to its benefits, including, but not limited to, any matters with respect to...6. any personal ínjury
allegedly incurred in or about a Company l{orkpløce or ìn the course and scope oføn Employee's employment.
See Exhibit 1-A at tf 2(E) (emphasis added).
e
    See   Exhibit l-A   at !f   2(D) (emphasis added).
"Sponsor" of the DRP. NCPS, De La Garza and Adame's employer at the time of the worþlace

incident, is a subsidiary of Nabors.r0 The DRP extends to and includes employees of NCPS.Ir

              11.     Further, Penn Virginia is an "Electing Entity" and agreed to be bound by the

terms of the DRP in two IADC Conhacts between it and Nabors.l2 As an "Electing Entity," Penn

Virginia is required to resolve disputes with any past or present employee(s) or applicants of

Nabors in accordance with the DRP.I3

              12.     On January 2, 2013, Adame executed a document entitled "Application For

Hourly And Daily Employment," as well as another document entitled "Notice to Applicants

Regarding Dispute Resolution Program."l4 Likewise, on July 16,2013, De                                  La   Garza executed

the "Application For Hourly And Daily Employment" and the "Notice to Applicants Regarding

Dispute Resolution Program."l5 De La Gana and Adame, by their signatures, acknowledged and

agreed that they would                be "required to adhere to the Dispute Resolution Program and its

requirement for submission of all claims to...arbitration."l6

              13.     On January 7,2013, Adame also executed a document entitled "Employee

Acknowledgement Concerning Nabors Dispute Resolution Program."lT The document

specifically states,         "I   have received a copy of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program."l8 De La

Garza executed the same document on July                            22, 20l3.re De La Garza and Adame, by their

to See     Nicholson Aff.   atl 6.
tt   See   Nicholson Aff.   atl6; see also Affidavit   oJ   Katherine Ryan, a true and corect copy of which attached as
Exhibit 2.
t2 See Nicholson Aff, at\l7 through 9; see ølso Exhibits 1-B and l-D; see a/so Exhibits 1-C and 1-E, at t[ 16.
t3 See Nicholson Af,f. atl 10; see also Exhibits 1-B - I -G.
ta See Nicholson Aff. atl 12; see also Exhibit 1-F.
ts See Nicholson Aff. at\ 16; see also Exhibit 1-G.
t6 See Nicholson Aff. atll 12 and 16; see also Exhibit I -F and 1 -G.
t7 Nicholson Aff. at\ 13; see also Exhibit I -H.
ts Nicholson Aff. at
                     fl 13; see also Exhibit l-H.
te NicholsonAff. atllT;see also Exhibit 1-I.
signatures, again acknowledged and agreed that they would be "required to adhere to the Dispute

Resolution Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to...arbitration."2O

            14.     On April 29,2003, Adame was hired by Nabors Well Services, Ltd. as a crew

worker.2l On January 7 ,2013, as a result of a business reorganization, he became a crew worker

for NCPS when Nabors V/ell Services, Ltd. liquidated into Nabors V/ell Services, Co., which

liquidated and dissolved into NCPS.22 As a crew worker, Adame's job duties and responsibilities

included the operation of hand and power tools to perform maintenance and repairs to oil or gas

wells and related equipment. Adame's job duties also involved activities associated with rigging-

up and rigging-down workover rigs, pulling levers or turning handles to extend hydraulic or

screw-type jacks to support and level the rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing,

and other tasks necessary to support operations.23 Adame's job duties and responsibilities did not

include the movement of goods in interstate commerce.2a While employed by NCPS, Adame was

never employed as a commercial truck driver or transportation worker.25

            15.     On July 22,2013, De La Garza was hired by NCPS as a crew worker.26 As a crew

worker, De La Garza'sjob duties and responsibilities included the operation of hand and power

tools to perform maintenance and repairs to oil or gas wells and related equipment. De La

Garza's      job duties also involved activities associated with rigging-up and rigging-down
workover rigs, pulling levers or turning handles to extend hydraulic or screw-type jacks to

support and level the          rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing, and other tasks

necessary to support operations.2T          DeLaGarza'sjob duties and responsibilities did not include

20
     Nicholson Alf. atll 13 and,17; see also Exhibit l-E.
2t   Nicholson Aff. at \ 14.
22
   NicholsonAff. atfl 14.
23
   Nicholson Aff. at fl 14.
24
   Id.
2s Id.
26
   Nicholson Aff, at tf 18.
27
   Nicholson Aff atl 18.
the movement of goods in interstate commerce.2s While employed by NCPS, De La Garza was

never employed as a commercial truck driver or transportation worker.2e

            L6.     On July 24, 2014, De La Garza filed his Original Petition, and on September 8,

2014 and October           l,   2014, De    La   Garza filed his First and Second Amended Petitions.30

Likewise, on November 6, 2014 and February 19, 2015, Adame filed his Original and First

Amended Petitions          in Intervention.3l A copy of        all   pleadings are maintained      in the Court's

records. De       La Garza and Adame allege that on April 29, 2014 and while working for NCPS,

they were injured when a piece of NCPS line pipe parted, causing both to be thrown back as a

result ofthe released pressurized gas.32

                                   III. SUMMARY OF'THE ARGUMENT
            17.     The Company (defined to include Nabors, its subsidiaries, and any "Electing

Entity") has a valid arbitration agreement, which both De La Garza and Adame acknowledged

and accepted. Because Penn Virginia is an "Electing Entity," the parties' claims against Penn

Virginia fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the parties' claims

must be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the DRP. Therefore, Penn

Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted and this case should be abated.

                                     IV. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

            18.     Pursuant to the DRP, the parties' lawsuit must be submitted to binding arbitration.

It is undisputed         that Texas courts recognize that arbitration agreements in an "at-will"

employment setting apply to personal injury claims.                  In fact, there is a strong presumption in

Texas favoring arbitration. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S. Ct. 1302 (2001);

28
     Id.
2e
     Id.
30   Plaintiffls Original Petition, First Amended Petition, and Second Amended Petition.
3rAdame's Original Petition in Intervention and First Amended Petition in Intervention.
32SeePlaintifls Original Petition and First Amended Petition, as well as Adame's Original Petition in Intervention
and First Amended Petition in Intervention.
Cantella      &   Co. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d,943 (Tex. 1996); Jack B. Anglin v. Tipps,842 S.W.2d
266, 268 (Tex. 1992).             If a valid arbitration     agreement exists, and the claims are within the

agreement's scope,           atrial cout     has no discretion and must compel arbitration. Cantella,924

S.V/.2d at 944; Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Kilgore, 871 S.V/.2d 925,928 (Tex.                     App.-
Corpus Christi, 1994, orig. proceeding).

            19.      The clear language of the DRP states that the Federal Arbitration Act,9 U.S.C.         $

1, et. seq. ("FAJA.") controls.33 The Texas Supreme Court has held that in cases where the FAA

is stated in the agreement as the controlling law, the FAA prevails. EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias,

934 S.W.2d 87,91 (Tex. 1996). In adjudicating a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA,

courts generally try to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question.

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985); Folse                  v.

Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp., 56 F.3d 603, 605 (5th Cir. 1995); R.M. Perez &

Assocs., Inc. v. Welch, 960F.2d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 1992).

            20.      Under the FAA, the court applies ordinary state contract law principles in order to

decide whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. See In re            D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.V/.3d

774,781 (Tex. 2006) (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944

(1995)); 9 U.S.C.A.           $   1 et seq.; Crv. Pnec.      & R¡v. Coon $     171.001 et   seq. Once a valid

arbitration agreement             is   established,   a   presumption attaches favoring arbitration. Dallas

Cardiologt Assoc., P.A. v. Mallick,978 S.V/.2d 209,212 (Tex. App.-Dallas, 1998, pet. denied).

Then Court must then determine whether the arbitration agreement covers the non-movant's

claims. In re Jim Walter Homes, lnc.,207 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006).

In doing so,      a court must focus on the complaint's factual allegations rather than the legal causes

of action asserted. Id.

33 S¿¿   Exhibit l-A at !f fl 2(C) and   8
         21.    Thus, two questions guide the determination of whether Penn Virginia's Motion

to Compel should be granted: 1) is there a valid agreement to arbitrate; and2) does the dispute in

question fall within the scope of the agreement? Associated Glass, Ltd. v. Eye Ten Oaks Invs.,

Ltd., 147 S.W.3d 507,511 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2004,no pet.).

A.       Valid Agreement to Arbitrate

         22.    An "at-will" employee who receives notice of an employer's arbitration policy

and continues or commences employment accepts the terms of the agreement as a matter of law.

See   In re Halliburton,   S0 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002);      In re Dallas Peterbilt, Ltd., L.L.P., 1.96

S.\M.3d 761, 162 (Tex. 2006). In Halliburton, the employer created a dispute resolution program

which obligated both employees and the employer to arbitrate all disputes between them.          See

Halliburton, 80 S.W.3d at 566. The Texas Supreme Court held that the employer was justified

in giving notice to all employees of the program and informing them that by continuing to work

after the adoption of the program, employees would be considered to have accepted the program.

See id at 569-71.

         23.    Four years later, the San Antonio Court of Appeals extended Halliburton even

further. Relying on Halliburton, the Fourth Court of Appeals compelled arbitration where the

employee expressly refused      to sign an arbitration     agreement   but continued to work    after

receivingnoticeofthearbit¡ationrequirement. InrefuRGT,Inc.,2006WL622736 (Tex.App.-

San   Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding).

         24. It should also be noted that the San Antonio Court of Appeals has specifically
considered the Nabors DRP and held that    it is valid   and enforceable on multiple occasions. See

NDUSA USA, LP v. Pena, 385 S.V/.3d 103 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2012, pet. denied);

NDUSA USA, LP v. Carpenter, 198 S.V/.3d 240,249 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, orig.
proceeding). Furthermore,               in October 2013 and, then again in        December 2013, the Texas

Supreme Court denied the family of a deceased Nabors' employee's petition for review when the

family sought to reverse the Fourth Court of Appeals' determination that the DRP was valid and

enforceable.        See    Pena,385 S.ïi/.3d 103

            25.       De La Garza and Adame executed documents on several occasions that clearly

express both parties' agreement to the terms of the DRP.3a The documents specifically state that

De La Garza and Adame acknowledged receiving, reviewing, understanding, and accepting the

DRP's requirement to submit disputes to arbitration.3s De LaGarza and Adame's signatures on

the aforementioned documents is strong evidence of their actual acknowledgment and agreement

that they are required to adhere to the DRP. See In re Bunzl USA,l55 S.W.3d 202 (Tex.               App.-
El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding).

            26.       De La Garza and Adame accepted the terms of the DRP as a matter of law.

Therefore, a valid and enforceable agreement                     to arbitrate was formed. In re Pqlm Harbor
Homes,       Inc.,l95 S.V/.3d 672,676 (Tex. 2006).

B.          The Dispute Falls Within the Scope of the Aereement

            21.       The parties' claims fall within the scope of the DRP. The DRP requires that

disputes between the Company (defined as Nabors, its subsidiaries, and any "Electing Entity")

and its current or former employees be submitted to arbitration. According to the parties'

Petitions, De La Gana and Adame were both employees of a Nabors' subsidiary (NCPS) and

both were allegedly injured while in the course and scope of their employment. Consequently,

this dispute, which is between NCPS employees and Penn Virginia (an "Electing Entity"), falls

within the scope of the agreement.

3a   SeeNicholsonAff.       atfl\12, 13,16,andl7;see also Exhibits 1-F- 1-I.
35
     Nichols on Aff. at   I I 12, 13, I 6, and 17 ; see also Exhibits -F - 1-I.
                                                                  1
            28.     Whether a claim falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement depends on the

factual allegations of the complaint rather than the legal causes of action asserted. Prudential

Secs.,     Inc. v. Marshall,909 S.V/.2d 896, 899 (Tex. 1995); Ikon Of/ìce Solutions, Inc. v. Eifert,2

S.W.3d 688, 697 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); Prudentiøl-Bache

Secs.,     Inc. v. Garza, 848 S.V/.2d 803, 807 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1993). Based on the

factual allegations contained in the parlies' pleadings, the parties' claims fall squarely within the

scope of the DRP.

            29.     It is undisputed that De La Garza and Adame were employed by NCPS, which                   is

a Nabors subsidiary.36            It is undisputed that La   Garza and Adame both alleged that they were

injured at the worþlace and/or in the course and scope of their employment.3T

            30.     De La Garza and Adame signed an acknowledgement that specifically states,                  "I
have received a copy of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program...and understand that                        I   am

required to adhere to the Dispute Resolution Program and its requirement for submission                        of

disputes to...arbitration."38          All of these terms are clearly defined in the DRP.

            31.     The DRP clearly and unequivocally states that             it   "applies to and binds the

Company, each Employee and Applicant."3e The DRP defines "Dispute" to include any personal

injury that is incurred at the worþlace or in the course and scope of employment.aO According

to the DRP, "Company" means "Sponsor and every direct and indirect subsidiary...of Sponsor,

(and) any Electing Entity."al

36 Nicholson Aff. atl T 6, 11 through 151, see also Plaintiffs Original Petition and First Amended Petition, and
Adame's Original Petition in Intervention and First Amended Petition in Intervention.
37 ,See Plaintiffs Original Petition and First Amended Petition and Adame's Original Petition in Intervention and

First Amended Petition in Intervention.
38
   Nicholson Aff atll l3 and l6; see also Exhibits l-H and l-I (emphasis added).
3e,S¿e  Exhibit l-4, at !f l.
ao      Exhibit 1-A at tf 2(E).
     See
ar ,See Exhibit l-A at 2(D).
                       !f
         32.     Nabors is the "sponsor" of the DRP.a2 NCPS is a subsidiary of Nabors.a3 Penn

Virginia is an "Electing Entity" and agreed that it is bound by the terms of the DRP.44 Therefore,

Penn Virginia falls within the scope of the "Company."

         33.      The parties' claims clearly fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Consequently, Penn Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted and this case

should be abated or dismissed and compelled to final and binding arbitration.

                                              V. CONCLUSION

         34.     Nabors has instituted a comprehensive dispute resolution program, which requires

arbitration of disputes between the Company (which is defined as Nabors Industries, Inc., its

subsidiaries, and any "Electing Entity") and current or former employees. De La Garza and

Adame unequivocally agreed to adhere to the DRP and its requirement to submit all claims to

arbitration. The DRP applies to personal injuries that occur at the workplace or while the

employee is     in the course and scope of his employment.                Therefore, the parties' claims,        as

asserted   in this lawsuit, are subject to the terms of the DRP.              Consequently, Penn Virginia's

Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted and this case should be abated or dismissed and

compelled to final and binding arbitration.

                                                   PRAYER

         For the foregoing reasons, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. and PENN VIRGINIA

OIL & GAS GP, LLC request that the Court grant this Motion, abate or dismiss this action, and

order that the claims asserted by Alfredo De La Garza,Individually and as Next Friend of

                                               a, and Intervenor, John Paul Adame, Individually and as

Next Friend    of                                                                                                be

a2
  Nicholson Aff, at\ 4; see also Exhibit l-4, at !J 2(L).
43Nicholson Aff. atl 6.
4 See Nicholson Aff. atll7 through l0; see also Exhibits l-C and l-F,, at Contractors Special Provisions,fllí.
compelled   to final and binding arbitration. PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. and PENN

VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC further request all other relief to which they are entitled.

                                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                  /s/ Thomas J. Smith
                                                  Thomas J. Smith
                                                    State Bar No. 00788934
                                                    tsmith@gallowayj ohnson. com
                                                  Kelly C. Hartmann
                                                    State Bar No. 24055631
                                                    khartmarn@gall owayj ohn son. com
                                                  Alexis B. Hester
                                                    State Bar No.24072807
                                                     ahester @gallowayj ohnson. com
                                                  Ge[owey,     JoFTNSoN, Tolr¿prrNs
                                                   Bunn & SurrH
                                                  l30l McKinney, Suite 1400
                                                  Houston, Texas 77010
                                                  (713) s99-0700
                                                  (7 1 3) 599-07 77 - facsimile

                                                  Attorneys for Defendants, Penn VirgÍnÍa
                                                  OÍ1& Gaso L.P. and Penn VÍrgÍnÍa OÍI8t
                                                  Gas GP,   LLC
                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

          I hereby certi$ that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served
electronically, by and through the Court approved electronic filing manager, to participating
parties on this 18th day of June 2015, as follows:

John David Hart                                      J. Javier Gutierrez
L.rw Ornrcns OF JonN D¿,vrn H¿,nr                    Ana Laura Gutierrez
Wells Fargo Tower                                    Tnn GurrrRREz LAw Frnu,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
Coanselfor Plaintiff, Individaally and as            Counselfor Intervenor,
Nert Fríend of I                                     John Pøul Adøme, Indivíduølly and øs Next
                      , Minor Children               Fríend of

Benjamin A. Escobar, Jr.
Brit T. Brown
BEIRNE, M.lvNnRn & PlnsoNo L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77056
Phone 713-623-0887
Fax     713-960-1527
Counsel  for Defendønt, Cudd Pressure
Control, Inc.

                                              /s/ Thomas J. Smith
                                              Thomas J. Smith
                                         CAUSE NO. 2014-42519

ALFREDO DE LA GARZA,                                  $              IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDIVIDUALLY        aTTcl   AS NE,XT FRIEND           $
FOR                                                   $
                                      mlnoïs          ç
                                                      $
                                                      $                 HARRIS COI'NTY, TEXAS
                                                      $
PENN VIRGINIA OlL & GAS, LP,                          $
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC,                      $
MII(E FERGUSON, TRIFECTA                              $
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, CUDD                          $
PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.,                               $
ROYWELL SERVICES,INC. and OAI(S                       6

PERSONNEL SERVICES, lNC, cllb/a                       $
                                                                                  ST
THE OAKS GROUP                                        $                  28   1        JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                                               VERIFICATION

S'|ATE OF TEXAS                  {j

                                 $
COUNTY OF HARRIS                 $

       BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared Thornas                       J.

Smith, who after being cluly sworn upon his oath stated as follows:

1.     "My narne is Thomas J. Srnith. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age. i am of                 sound

rnind and in all ways competent to make this verification.

2.     I    am one of the attorneys of record for Dcfcndants, Penn Virginia Oil            &   Gas, L,P, and

Penn Virginia    Oil & Gas GP, LLC. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit

and those facts are true and correct.

3.      I   have revicwcd the foregoing Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate this case

pcnding such arbitration. In my personal knowledge, the Motion truly and correctly recites the

fäctual allegations set fortir in the pleadings ancl the evidence in the trial court record."
                                                   J

       SUBSCRIBED AND SWOI{N TO before me a notary public, which witness my hand
and seal of this office this/ l*day of June, 2015.

                                           Notary Public in and for    ofTexas
                nHoND^ SCHNltZ
           Notory Publlc, Stole ol Toxqs
             MyCommlsslon Fxplr€!
              Docembor     lt,2013
                                          CAUSE NO. 2014-42519

ALFREDO DE LA GARZA,                                 $           IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                Y andAs NEXTFRIEND                   $
                                    and              $
                                                     $
                                                     $
                                                     $             HARRIS COLINTY, TEXAS
                                                     $
PENN VIRGINIA OTL &. GAS, LP,                        $
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC,                     $
MIKE FERGUSON, TRIFECTA                              $
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, CUDD                         $
PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.,                              $
ROYV/ELL SERVICES, INC. and OAKS                     $
PERSONNEL SERVTCES, INC. d/b/A                       $
                                                                             ST
THE OAKS GROUP                                       $              28   1        JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                            AFFIDAVIT OF KNITH NICHOLSON

STATE OF'TEXAS                 $
                               $
COUNTY OF HARRIS               $

         Before me, the unclersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Keith Nicholson, the
afftan6 a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to affiant, the
affiant testified:

I      "My name is Keith Nicholson. I am over l8 years of age, of sound mind, and capable of
       making this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge
       and are true and correct.

2.     I am Assistant General Counsel for Nabors Corporate Services, Inc.

J     In my capacity as Assistant General Counsel, I am required to be familiar with Nabors
      Industries, Inc.'s corporate structure and the relationship of its various subsidiaries and
       affiliated companies.    I    am also required to be familiar with the Nabors Dispute
      Resolution Program ("DIUt"¡.

4     Nabors Industries, Inc. is the "Sponsor" of the Nabors DRP as that tem is defined by the
      DRP. A true and correct copy of the DRP is attached to my affìdavit as Exhibit 1-4.

5     The DRP provides that it applies to all direct and indirect subsidiaries of Nabors
      Inclustries, Inc., as well as all "Electing Entities" that have agreed to be bound by same.

6.    Nabors Completion     &      Production Services Co. ("NCPS") was a subsidiary of Nabors

                                            EXHIBIT "1"
         Industries, Inc. at the time of the April 29,2014 incident which makes the basis of the
         lawsuit.

7        On Septembet 23,2008, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP agreed to be bound by the DRP as
         an "Electing Entity" in the "Contractors Special Provisions" contained in the International
         Association of Drilling Contractors ("IADC") Drilling Contract between it and Nabors
         Drilling USA LP. A true and correct copy of the IADC Contract is attached in its entirety
         to my affidavit as Exhibit l-8. The Contractors Special Provisions portion has been
         pulled out for reference and is attached as Exhibit 1-C.

8.       The Contractors Special Provisions page states at paragraph 16 that "Operator, its parent,
         subsidiary, and affiliated corporations,..(collectively "Operator")   is   cognizant   of   the
         Nabors Dispute Resolution Program and wishes to become an Electing Entity, as defined
         in that Program. Accordingly, Operator and Nabors Industries, Inc. ("Nabors") hereby
         agree that Operator is an Electing Entity..."

9        In addition, on September 8, 2010, Penn Virginia MC Energy, LLC agreed to be bound
         by the DRP as an "Electing Entity" in the "Contractors Special Provisions" contained in
         the International Association of Drilling Contractors ("IADC") Drilling Contract between
         it and Nabors Drilling USA LP. A true and conect copy of the IADC Contract is attached
         in its entirety to my affidavit as Exhibit 1-D. The Contractors Special Provisions portion
         has been pulled out for reference and is attached as Exhibit 1-8. lt is my understanding
         that Penn Virginia MC Energy, LLC is a subsidiary or affiliated corporation of Penn
         Virginia Oil & Gas, LP andlor Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC.

10.      As an "Electing Entity," Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP and Penn Virginia Oil
         & Gas GP, LLC are required to resolve disputes with any past or present employee(s) or
         applicant(s) of Nabors Industries, Inc. or its subsidiaries in accordance with the DRP.

I   l.   Based upon my review of the personnel file of Mr. Adame, I can confirm that Mr. Adame
         was employed by NCPS, and that he executed various documents that acknowledged that
         he received, reviewed, and accepted the terms and conditions of the DRP.

t2,      Specifically, my review of the relevant documents confirms that on January 2,2013,Mr.
         Adame executed a document entitled "Application For Hourly And Daily Employment,"
         a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-F. Mr. Adame acknowledged
         and agreed by his signature that he is "required to adhere to the Dispute Resolution
         Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to..,arbitration."

l3       Further, on January 7,2013, Mr. Adame executed a document entitled "Employee
         Acknowledgement Concerning Nabors Dispute Resolution Program," a true and correct
         copy of which is attached as Exhibit l-H. The document specifically states, "I have
         received a copy of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Ptogram." Mr, Adame acknowledged
         and agreed by his signature that he is "required to adhere to the Dispute Resolution
         Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to...arbitration."
t4    Mr. Adame was employed by NCPS as a crew worker. As a crew worker, Mr. Adame's
      job duties and responsibilities included the operation of hand and power tools to perform
      maintenance and repairs to oil or gas wells and related equipment. Mr. Adame's job
       duties also involved activities associated with rigging-up and rigging-down work over
      rigs, pulling levers or turning handles to extend hydraulic or screw-type jacks to support
      and level the rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing, and other tasks
      necessary to support operations. 'While employed by NCPS, Mr. Adame was never a
      commercial truck driver or transportation worker.

15.   Based upon my review of the personnel file of Mr. Alfredo De La Garza,I can confirm
      that Mr'. De La Gana was employed by NCPS, ancl that he executed various documents
      that acknowledged that he received, reviewed, and accepted the terms and conditions of
      the DRP.

16.   Specifically, my review of the relevant documents confirms that on July 16, 2013, Mr. De
      La Gana executed a       document entitled "Application For Hourly And Daily
      Employment," a true and coüect copy of which is attached as Exhibit l-G. By his
      signature, Mr. De LaGarza acknowledged and agreed that he is "required to adhere to the
      Dispute Resolution Program and its requirement for submission of all claims
      to. .. arbitration."

17.   Further, on July 22,2013, Mr, De La Garza executed a document entitled "Employee
      Acknowledgement Concerning Nabors Dispute Resolution Program," a true and correct
      copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-I. The document specifically states, "I have
      received  a copy of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program." Mr. De La Garza
      acknowledged and agreed by his signature that he is "required to adhere to the Dispute
      Resolution Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to...arbitration."

18    Mr. De LaGarua was employed by NCPS as a crew worker. As a crew worker, Mr. De
      La Garza's job duties and responsibilities included the operation of hand and power tools
      to perform maintenance and repairs to oil or gas wells and related equipment. Mr. De La
      Garza's job duties also involved activities associated with rigging-up and rigging-down
      work over rigs, pulling levers or turning handles to extend hydraulic or screw-type jacks
      to support and level the rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing, and other
      tasks necessary to support operations. Mr. De La Garza'sjob duties and responsibilities
      did not include the movement of goods in interstate commerce. While employed by
      NCPS, Mr. De LaGarza was never a commercial truck driver or transportation worker.

t9.   At all times relevant to this matter, NCPS was engaged in interstate commerce as it was
      in the business of providing services for the development of oil and gas resourÇes that are
      placed into commerce in both Texas and other states of the United States.

20.   On information and belie{ Penn Virginia is also engaged in interstate commerce as it is
      in the business of producing oil and gas resources that are placed into commerce in both
      Texas and other states of the United States.
21    Attached as Exhibit 1-A to my affidavit is a true and correct copy of Nabors Industries,
      Inc.'s DRP booklet, in English and Spanish, respectively. These records are kept by
      Nabors Industries, Inc. in the regular course and scope of business, and it was the regular
      course of business of Nabors Industries,Ino, for an employee or representative of Nabors
      Industries, Inc., with knowledge of the act or event that was recorded, to make these
      records or to transmit the information to be included in these records. These records were
      made at or near the time or reasonably soon after the act or event that was recorded.

22    Attached as Exhibit i -B to my affrdavit is a true and correct copy of the 2008 IADC
      Drilling Contract between Nabors and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP, and attached as
      Exhibit l-C is a true and correct copy of the portion of the IADC contract titled
      "Contractors Special Provisions." These records are kept by Nabors Industries, Inc. in the
      regular course and scope of business, and it was the regular course of business of Nabors
      Industries, Inc. for an employee or representative of Nabors Industries, Inc., with
      knowledge of the act or event that was recorded, to make these records or to transmit the
      information to be included in these records. These records werc madc at or near the time
      or reasonably soon after the act or event that was recorded.

23    Attached as Exhibit  l-D to my affidavit is a true and conect copy of the 2010 IADC
      Drilling Contract between Nabors and Penn Virginia MC Energy, LLC, and attached as
      Exhibit l-E is a true and correct copy of the portion of the IADC contract titled
      "Contractors Special Provisions." These records are kept by Nabors Industries, Inc. in the
      regular course and scope ofbusiness, and it was the regular course ofbusiness ofNabors
      Industries, Inc. for an employee or representative of Nabors Industries, Inc., with
      knowledge of the act or event that was recorded, to make these records or to transmit the
      information to be included in these records. These records were made at or near the time
      or reasonably soon after the act or event that was recorded.

24.   The records attached as Exhibits 1-F, 1-G, l-H, and 1-I are true and correct copies of
      records that are kept by NCPS in the regular course and scope of business, and it was the
      regular course of business of NCPS for an employee or representative of NCPS, with
      knowledge of the act or event that was recorded, to make these records or to transmit the
      information to be included in these records. These records were made at or near the time
      the act or event that was recorded."

      Sworn to and subscribed before me by                      on the   Éã*of     June, 2015.

                                                            ú
                                           Notary         in and for the         ofTexas
         MAny D. Hotstilcroil              My Commission expires
       Notory Publlc, Stote of T6xos
         My Commtsrlon Expkês
             Moy 05,   20tt
   NABORS DISPUTE RESOLUTION
       PROGRAM and RULES

Copies      thís pamphlet are availahle in S¡sanish, upon
           o,.f
    rer|u.e st, .fi' o m anj, J$a b or,v s u b s i d i a ry' s Hu il1.c¿lt
                       Resouvees Deparfinent.

Copías de eslefall.eto esldtt dispontble en espafiol con
   solo requeriúas al Depa{lamenfo de Recurso^r
    tr,,   *   "..n n   nu
                             ^   Ê;¡HlþlT'¡*fl[ri.,'1.         t,
                                                                    ^".
                                                         ^t^
 THE    Ì     BORS DISPUTE RESOLUTION              P}   GRAM

1.   Purpose and Construction

     The Prograrn is designed to pt'ol'ide a means for the quick,
     fair, accessible, and inexpensive resolufion of Disputes
     between the Company and the Company's
     present a¡d fornrer Employees and Applicants for
     enrployment , ñated to or arising out of a cürrcnt, forrne¡
     or potsntial employment relationship with the Company.
     The Prograrn is intended to öreatÉ an exclusive procedural
     mechanism for the final ¡esolution of all Disputes falling
     within its terms. It is not inlended eitler to abridge or
     enlarge substantive rights available under applicable law,
     The Program contractually modifies the "at-wili" employ-
     mÉnf' relafiunship'"'betq'eet''tlte Company -'and its
     Employees, but only to the extent expressly stated in the
     Program. The Program should be interpreted in accor-
     dance with fhese putposes.

2,   I)efïnítions

     A.     '¿AAA" rüeaüs the Arnerican Arbitration Assosiation,

     B.     '!JAN{S" means Judiciai Arbitration and Mediation
            Servises.

     C. The 'oAct"       meåns the Federal Arbit¡ation Aot,
            9 U.S.C.$1, et seq., as amended frc¡m time to time'

     D.   "Company" means Sponsor and every direct ot
          indiresl subsidiary (wbether a corpotation, lirnited
          liability cornpâny, company partnership or other legal
          entity) of Sponsor, any Electing Eniity, any entity oi
          person alleged to have joint and several liability
          concerning aly Dispute, and all of their ditectors,
          officers, employees, and agents, every plan ofbene'
          fìts, whether or not tax-exempt, established or main-
          tained by any such entity, the fiduciaries, agents and
          employees of all suct¡ plans, and thç successors and
          assigns ofall such entities, plans and persons; provÍd-
          ed, however, that in the case of an Electing Entity,
          "Company" shall include the Electing Entity oúly tc
          the exlent provided in the Electing Entity's agrcement
          to Lre borurd by the Prograrn.

     E.     "Dispute" means     ali legal   arrd equitable elaims,
          demands, a¡d controversies, of whalever nature or
          kind, whether in contract, tort, under statufe or regu-
          Iation, or sóme other law, between persons bound by
          tlre Program or by an agrcement to resolve Disputes
        ler the Ptogtam, or between a person i nd by the
     Program and a person or entity otherwise entitled to
     its benefits, including, but not lirnited to,          any
     matters wilh respect to:

      l.   this Program;

     2.    the employment or polential reemployment of an
           Employee, including the terms, conditions, or
           termination     of   such employment with        the
           Company;

     3.    employee benefits     or incidents of employrnent
           with the Company;

     4:    any 'ofher"matter reiated -to- or çoncerníng^the        '-   '-
           relationship between the Employee and the
           Company includÍng, by way of example and
           wifhout limitati on, allegations ofi discri¡nination
           based on race, sex, religion, national origin, age,
           veteran status or disability; sexual or olher kinds
           of harassment; workers' compensafion retalia-
           tiorr; defanratiorr; infliction of emotional disüess,
           ârtitrust claim concenring wages or otherwiso, or
           status, claim or membership with regard to any
           employee benefit plan;

     5.    arr Applicant's application   for employment    and
           the Company's actions and decisions regarding
           such application; and

     6.    any personal injury allegedly incuned in or about
           a Company worþlace or in the coulse and scope
           of an Employee's employmenl

     "Dispute" includes all such mattcrs regatdless of
     when the çvents on which they are based occurred,
     including mattel:s based on events oceurring before
     the Employee became subject to this Program (so
     long as such disputes were not previously asserted in
     a judioial forum) or affer termination of the employ-
     ment ¡elationship"

F.   "Electing Entity" mearis any legal entity that         has
     agreed ts be bound by the Program as provided herein.

G.   "Etnployee" rneans ¿üy person who is or has been in
     the employment of tbe Comparry on or afer the effec-
     tive date of this Prograrn, rvhether ot not empltyed af
     the rime a claim is brought with respect to a Dispute,
     residirrg in the United States, or otherwise subject to
                 lau,s of the United States or any   statÊ,   ricipality,
           or other polilical subdivision of the Uniteo States,

     if,   "Applicant" llreâns any person u'ho is seekirrg or has
           sought employmont u'ith the Company affer the effec-
           tive date of this Program.

     I.    "Parly" meills, with respect to ¿ patticular Dispute,
           affecled pe1'solls a¡dlor' enlities bounci try this
           Prograrn,

     .1. "Progrårn" lrealls this        Nabors Dispute Rcsolurion
           Program, as anrended ftotn time to time.

     K.    "Rules" rneans the Nsbors Dispute Resolution Rttles,
     .     .as arnencleId.
? Exhibit G, Penn Virginia's Proposed Order granting its Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate.
Respectfu   lly submitted,

/s/ Kellv C. Hartmann
Thomas J. Smith
   State Bar No. 00788934
   tsmith@gallowayj ohnson. com
Kelly C. Hartmann
   State Bar No. 24055631
   khartmann@gallowayj ohnson. com
Alexis B. Hester
   State Bar No. 24072807
   ahester@gallowayj ohnson. com
Genowev, JoFrNSoN, TovprrNis
 Bunn&Svrrn
1301 McKinney, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77010
(713) s99-0700
(7 1 3) 599-07 7 7 - facsimile

Arronnnvs FoR DEFExDANTS, PENN
Vrncn{raOrl & Gns GP, LLC lNoPBNx
VrRcn¡r¡ Orr, & Grs,L.P
                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I hereby certiff that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served
electronically, by and through the Court approved electronic filing manager, to participating
parties on this 1't day of October 2015, as follows:

John David Hart                                  J. Javier Gutierrez
Llw OprrcES OF JonN Davrn      H,lnr             Ana Laura Gutierrez
V/ells Fargo Tower                               Tnn GurrnnRnz LAw Frnu, INc.
201 Main Street, Suite 1720                      700 East Third Street
Fort Worth, Texas76102                           Alice, Texas 78332
Phone 817-870-2102                               Phone 361-664-7377
Fax    817-332-5858                              Fax 36I-664-7245
Counselfor Plaintffi                             Counsel for Intervenor,
                                                 John Psul Adame
Benjamin A. Escobar, Jr.
Brit T. Brown                                    J. J.   Knauff
BETRNE, M¡ylunn & PansoN, L.L.P.                 The     Miller Law Firm
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500                  Turtle Creek Centre
Houston, Texas77056                              381I Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1950
Phone 713-623-0887                               Dallas, Texas 75219
Fax 713-960-1527                                 Phone 469-916-2552
Counsel for Defendant, Cudd Pressure             Fax        469-916-2555
Control, Inc.                                    Coanselfor Defendønt,
                                                 Penn Virgínia MC Energy, LLC

                                            /s/ Kelllt C. Hartmann
                                            Kelly C. Hartmann
                                                                                                     6/18/2015 4:58:00 PM
                                                                                Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harr¡s County
                                                                                                   Envelope No. 5739243
                                                                                                           BY: <>
                                                                                             Filed: 6/18/2015 4:58:00 PM

                                    CAUSE NO. 2014-42519

ALFREDO DE LA GARZA,                               $             IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDIVIDUALLY      ANd   AS NEXT FRIEND             $
FoR                                                $
                              , minors             $
                                                   $
                                                   $                HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                   $
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P.,                     $
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC,                   s
MIKE FERGUSON, TRIFECTA                            $
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, CUDD                       $
PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.,                            $
ROYWELL SERVICES, INC. and OAKS                    $
PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/A                     ö
THE OAKS GROUP                                     $                28IST   ruDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS, PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS, L.P. AND PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS
      GP. LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO ABATE

       Defendants, Penn Virginia    Oil &   Gas, L.P. and Penn Virginia     Oil & Gas GP, LLC

(collectively referred to hereinafter as "Penn Virginia" unless individual reference is necessary)

file this Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate pending such arbitration. In support thereof,

Penn Virginia would show as follows:

                                      I.INTRODUCTION

       1.      Plaintiff, Alfredo "Freddie" De La Garza ("Plaintiff'or "De La Garza"),

Individually and as Next Friend     of                                                             ,   and

Intervenor, John Paul "J.P." Adame ("Adame"), Individually and as Next Friend of

                                                                 , (collectively "the parties") filed

personal injury claims against Penn Virginia on July 24, 2014 and Novembet                    6,   2014,

respectively. Their claims arise out of an April 29,2014 incident, which occurred at a well site

                                         EXHIBIT "A''
located near Shiner, Texas while De La Garza and Adame were working in the course and scope

of their employment with Nabors Completion & Production Co. ("NCPS").

         2.       Nabors Industries, Inc. ("Nabors") and its subsidiaries, one of which is NCPS,

have a valid arbitration agreement which requires that disputes involving injuries to employees

that are incurred during the course and scope of employment be submitted to final and binding

arbitration. De     La   Garza and Adame both acknowledged and accepted the terms                            of   the

arbitration agreement.

         3.       The arbitration agreement 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.r Penn Virginia is an "Electing Entity"

and has agreed on more than one occasion to be bound by the terms of the agreement.z De La

Garza's and Adame's individual claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement as both

were employees of NCPS at the time of the incident and allege that their injuries occurred while

in the course and scope of their employment. De La                   Garza and Adame also filed claims as

representatives    of their minor children. The minors' claims are also subject to the arbitration

agreement as they are derivative          of De La Garza and Adame's claims. Consequently, De La

Garza and Adame's individual claims against Penn Virginia and the claims filed on behalf                           of

their minor children all fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

         4.       Therefore, Penn Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted, and

this case should be abated or dismissed and compelled to final and binding arbitration.

I See Nabors Dispute Resolution Program ("DRP'), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-4.
2 See 2008 Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP IADC Contract, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit l-
B; see also Contractors Special Provisions, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-C, at fl 16
"Operator, its parent, subsidiary and affiliated corporations, as well as the employees, officers and directors ofeach
(collectively, "Operator") is cognizant of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program and wishes to become an Electing
Entity, as defined in that Program." See also 2010 Penn Virginia MC Energlt, LLC IADC Contract, a true and
correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit l-D; see also Contractors Special Provisions, a true and correct copy of
which is attached as Exhibit l-E, at fl 16.
                                              II. I]NDISPUTED FACTS

              5.        Nabors is the "Sponsor" of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program ("DRP"),                    as

that term is defined by the DRP.3

              6.        The DRP is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").4

              7.        By its terms, the Nabors DRP is designed to provide         a means    for the resolution of

disputes between the "Company" and the Company's present and former employees that are

related to or that arise out of a current or former employment relationship with the Company.s

               8.       The DRP is intended to create an exclusive procedural mechanism for the final

resolution of all disputes falling within its terms.6 Consequently, the DRP requires that all

disputes between De La Garza, Adame and the Company are subject to binding arbitration.T

               9.       The DRP defines "Dispute" to include personal injuries that arc incurred at the

worþlace or in the course and scope of employment.s

               10.      The DRP defines "Company" as "Sponsor and every direct and indirect

subsidiary...ofSponsor,@.',9Aspreviouslymentioned,Naborsisthe

3 Afiidavit oJ' Keith Nicholson ("Nicholson Afn "), a true and conect copy of which is attached as Exhibit I, at I 4;
see also Exhibit I -4, at fl 2(L).
                       fl fl 2(C) and 8. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. $ 2, applies in state courts and preempts
a See Exhibit 1-A at

state anti-arbitration laws to the contrary. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S. Ct. 1302;' Southland Corp v.
Keating,465U.S. 1, 16(1984); seealsoPalmHarborHomesv.McCoy,944S.W.2dT16,T2l (Tex.App.-Fort
Worth 1997) (holding that FAA preempted Texas Arbitration Act's requirement that party's attomey sign
agreement). Although the FAA preempts state arbitration laws, courts still must resort to general state law contract
principles to determine whether an arbitration agreement will be enforced.
5 ,Se¿     Exhibit l-4, at fl l.
6
    See    Exhibit l-4, at 'lf l.
7
    See    Exhibit l-4.
8 "Dispute" means all legal and equitable claims, demand and controversies, of whatever nature or kind, whether in
contract, tort, under statute or regulation, or some other law, between persons bound by the Program or by an
agreement to resolve Disputes under the Program, or between a person bound by the Program and a person or entity
otherwise entitled to its benefits, including, but not limited to, any matters with respect to...6. any personal injary
allegedly incuned ín or about a Company Workplace or ín the course and scope of an Employee's employment.
.See Exhibit 1-A at tf 2(E) (emphasis added).
e   ,!¿¿   Exhibit l-A at !f 2(D) (emphasis added).
"Sponsor" of the DRP. NCPS, De La Garza and Adame's employer at the time of the workplace

incident, is a subsidiary of Nabors.r0 The DRP extends to and includes employees ofNCPS.rr

             11.      Further, Penn Virginia is an "Electing Entity" and agreed to be bound by the

terms of the DRP in two IADC Contracts between it and Nabors.l2 As an "Electing Entity," Penn

Virginia is required to resolve disputes with any past or present employee(s) or applicants of

Nabors in accordance with the DRP.I3

              12.     On January 2, 2013, Adame executed a document entitled "Application For

Hourly And Daily Employment," as well as another document entitled "Notice to Applicants

Regarding Dispute Resolution Program."l4 Likewise, on July 16,2013, De                                   La Garza executed

the "Application For Hourly And Daily Employment" and the "Notice to Applicants Regarding

Dispute Resolution Program."l5 De La Garza and Adame, by their signatures, acknowledged and

agreed that they would be "required                       to   adhere   to the Dispute Resolution Program and                its

requirement for submission of all claims to...arbitration."16

              13.     On January 7,2013, Adame also executed a document entitled "Employee

Acknowledgement Concerning Nabors Dispute Resolution Program."17                                             The   document

specifically states, "I have received a copy of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Progtam."l8 De La

Garza executed the same document                        on   J:uly   22, 2013.1e De La Garza and Adame, by their

to See     Nicholson Aff.   at\6.
tt   See   Nicholson Aff.   atl 6; see also Affidavit   ol Katherine Ryan, a true and correct copy   ofwhich attached   as
Exhibit 2.
t2     Nicholson Aff. at\l7 through 9; see also Exhibits 1-B and 1-D; see a/so Exhibits 1-C and l-E, at fl 16.
     See
t3 See Nicholson Aff. at \ l0; see als o Exhibits I -B - I -G.
ta See Nicholson Aff. atl L2; see also Exhibit I -F.
ts See Nicholson Aff. atl L6; see also Exhibit I -G.
t6 See Nicholson Aff. atll 12 and 16; see also Exhibit 1-F and l-G.
t7 Nicholson Aff. atl 13; see also Exhibit I -H.

                     fl 13; see also Exhibit l-H.
t8 Nicholson Aff. at
te Nicholson Aff. atl 17; see also Exhibit I -I.
signatures, again acknowledged and agreed that they would be "required to adhere to the Dispute

Resolution Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to. . . arbitration."2O

            14.        On April 29,2003, Adame was hired by Nabors V/ell Services, Ltd. as a crew

worker.2l On January 7,2013, as a result of a business reorganization, he became a crew worker

for NCPS when Nabors Well Services, Ltd. liquidated into Nabors Well Services, Co., which

liquidated and dissolved into NCPS                .22   As a crew worker, Adame's job duties and responsibilities

included the operation of hand and power tools to perform maintenance and repairs to oil or gas

wells and related equipment. Adame's job duties also involved activities associated with rigging-

up and rigging-down workover rigs, pulling levers or tuming handles to extend hydraulic or

screw-type jacks to support and level the rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing,

and other tasks necessary to support operations.23 Adame's                     job duties and responsibilities did not

include the movement of goods in interstate commerce.2a While employed by NCPS, Adame was

never employed as a commercial truck driver or transportation worker.25

            15.         On July 22,2013, De La Garzawas hired by NCPS as a crew worker.26 As a crew

worker, De La Garza'sjob duties and responsibilities included the operation of hand and power

tools to perform maintenance and repairs to oil or gas wells and related equipment. De La

Garza's       job duties also involved activities                 associated   with rigging-up and      rigging-down

workover rigs, pulling levers or turning handles to extend hydraulic or screw-type jacks to

support and level the                  rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing, and other tasks

necessary to support operations.21               DeLa Garza'sjob duties          and responsibilities did not include

20
   Nicholson    Aff,, at flfl 13 and 17; see also Exhibit I -E.
2t Nicholson    Aff.   atnÁ.
22
   Nicholson    Aff    at   fl   14.
23
   Nicholson    Aff.   atl       14.
24
   Id.
25
   Id.
26
   Nicholson  Aff. at tf 18.
21
     NicholsonAff. attf 18.
the movement of goods in interstate commerce.2s While employed by NCPS, De La Garza was

never employed as a commercial truck driver or transportation worker.2e

            16.     On July 24, 2014, De La Garua filed his Original Petition, and on September 8,

2014 and October         I,   2014, De   La      Garza filed his First and Second Amended Petitions.30

Likewise, on November 6, 2014 and February 19, 2015, Adame filed his Original and First

Amended Petitions        in Intervention.3l A copy of        all   pleadings are maintained        in the Court's

records. De       La Garza and Adame allege that on April 29,2014 and while working for NCPS,

they were injured when a piece of NCPS line pipe parted, causing both to be thrown back as a

result ofthe released pressurized       gas.32

                                III. SUMMARY          OF THE ARGUMENT

            17.     The Company (defined to include Nabors, its subsidiaries, and any "Electing

Entity") has a valid arbitration agreement, which both De La Gana and Adame acknowledged

and accepted. Because Penn Virginia is an "Electing Entity," the parties' claims against Penn

Virginia fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the parties' claims

must be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the DRP. Therefore, Penn

Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted and this case should be abated.

                                  IV. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

            18.     Pursuant to the DRP, the parties' lawsuit must be submitted to binding arbitration.

It is undisputed that Texas           courts recognize that arbitration agreements in an "at-will"

employment setting apply to personal injury claims.                In fact, there is a strong presumption in

Texas favoring arbitration. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams,                   l2l   S. Ct. 1302 (2001);
28
     Id.
2e
     Id.
30         s Original Petition, First Amended Petition, and Second Amended Petition.
     Plaintiff
3rAdame's Original Petition in Intervention and First Amended Petition in Intervention.
32 SeePlaintifls Original Petition and First Amended Petition, as well as Adame's Original Petition in Intervention

and First Amended Petition in Intervention.
Cantella       &   Co. v. Goodwin,924 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. 1996); Jack B. Anglin v. Tipps,842 S.V/.2d

266, 268 (Tex. 1992).             If   a valid arbitration agreement exists, and the claims are within the

agreement's scope,            atrial court   has no discretion and must compel arbitration. Cantella,924

S.W.2d at 944; Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Kilgore, 871 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex.                      App.-
Corpus Christi, 1994, orig. proceeding).

             19.      The clear language of the DRP states that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.        $

1, et. seq.     ("FAA") controls.33 The Texas Supreme Court has held that in            cases where the   FAA

is stated in the agreement as the controlling law, the FAA prevails. EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias,

934 S.V/.2d 87,91 (Tex. 1996). In adjudicating a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA,

courts generally try to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question.

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985); Folse                   v.

Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp., 56 F.3d 603, 605 (5th Cir. 1995); R.M. Perez &

Assocs., Inc. v. IIlelch, 960F.2d,534, 538 (5th Cir. 1992).

             20.      Under the FAA, the court applies ordinary state contract law principles in order to

decide whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. See             In re D. ll'ilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d

774, 781 (Tex. 2006) (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944

(1995)); 9 U.S.C.A.            $ I et seq.; Ctv. Pnec. & REn¿. Cone $          171.001 et   seq. Once a valid

arbitration agreement             is   established,   a   presumption attaches favoring arbitration. Dallas

Cardiology Assoc., P.A. v. Mallick,978 S.W.2d 209,212 (Tex. App.-Dallas, 1998, pet. denied).

Then Court must then determine whether the arbitration agreement covers the non-movant's

claims. In re Jim Walter Homes, lnc.,207 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006).

In doing so, a court must focus on the complaint's factual allegations rather than the legal causes

of action asserted. Id.

33 .S¿e   Exhibit 1-A at fl !f 2(C) and 8.
        21.    Thus, two questions guide the determination of whether Penn Virginia's Motion

to Compel should be granted: 1) is there   a   valid agreement to arbitrate; and 2) does the dispute in

question fall within the scope of the agreement? Associated Glass, Ltd. v. Eye Ten Oaks Invs.,

Ltd., 147 S.W.3d 507,511 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.).

A.      Valid Aereement to Arbitrate

        22.    An "at-will" employee who receives notice of an employer's arbitration policy

and continues or commences employment accepts the terms of the agreement as a matter of law.

See   In re Halliburton, 80 S.V/.3d 566 (Tex.        2002);    In re Dallqs Peterbilt, Ltd., L.L.P.,   196

S.W.3d 16l, 162 (Tex. 2006)   .   In Halliburton, the employer created a dispute resolution program

which obligated both employees and the employer to arbitrate all disputes between them. See

Halliburton, 80 S.V/.3d at 566. The Texas Supreme Court held that the employer was justified

in giving notice to all employees of the program and informing them that by continuing to work

after the adoption of the program, employees would be considered to have accepted the program.

See id at569-71.

        23.    Four years later, the San Antonio Court of Appeals extended Halliburton even

further. Relying on Halliburton, lhe Fourth Court of Appeals compelled arbitration where the

employee expressly refused        to sign an arbitration       agreement   but continued to work   after

receiving notice of the arbitration requirement. In re &RGT, Inc.,2006WL 622736 (Tex.           App.-
San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding).

        24. It should also be noted that the San Antonio              Court of Appeals has specifically

considered the Nabors DRP and held that        it is valid   and enforceable on multiple occasions. S¿e

NDUSA USA, LP v. Pena,385 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2012, pet. denied);

NDUSA USA, LP v. Carpenter, 198 S.V/.3d 240,249 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, orig.
proceeding). Furthermore,            in October 2013 and, then again in        December 2013, the Texas

Supreme Court denied the family of a deceased Nabors' employee's petition for review when the

family sought to reverse the Fourth Court of Appeals' determination that the DRP was valid and

enforceable.       See   Pena,385 S.W.3d 103

            25.     De La Garza and Adame executed documents on several occasions that clearly

express both parties' agreement to the terms of the DRP.3a The documents specifically state that

De La Gana and Adame acknowledged receiving, reviewing, understanding, and accepting the

DRP's requirement to submit disputes to arbitration.3s De La Garza and Adame's signatures on

the aforementioned documents is strong evidence of their actual acknowledgment and agreement

that they are required to adhere to the DRP. See In re Bunzl USA, 155 S.V/.3d 202 (Tex.          App.-
El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding).

            26.     De La Garza and Adame accepted the terms of the DRP as a maller of law.

Therefore, a valid and enforceable agreement                  to arbitrate was formed. In re Palm Harbor

Homes, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 672,676 (Tex. 2006).

B.         The Disnute Falls Within the Scope of the Asreement

           27.      The parties' claims fall within the scope of the DRP. The DRP requires that

disputes between the Company (defined as Nabors, its subsidiaries, and any "Electing Entity")

and its current or former employees be submitted to arbitration. According to the parties'

Petitions, De La Garza and Adame were both employees of a Nabors' subsidiary (NCPS) and

both were allegedly injured while in the course and scope of their employment. Consequently,

this dispute, which is between NCPS employees and Penn Virginia (an "Electing Entity"), falls

within the scope of the agreement.

3a
     See Nicholson Aff, atfl\ 12,73,16, and l7; see also Exhibits 1-F - l-I.
3s
     NicholsonAff. at!ffl 12, 13, 16, and l7;see also Exhibits l-F - 1-I.
          28.      Whether a claim falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement depends on the

factual allegations of the complaint rather than the legal causes of action asserled. Prudential

Secs.,   Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. 1995) ; Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. v. Eifert, 2

S.W.3d 688,697 (Tex. App.-Houston                    !4th Dist.l   1999, orig. proceeding); Prudential-Bache

Secs.,   Inc. v. Garza,848 S.V/.2d 803, 807 (Tex. App.-Cotpus Christi 1993). Based on the

factual allegations contained in the parties' pleadings, the parties' claims fall squarely within the

scope of the DRP.

          29.      It is undisputed that De La Garza         and Adame were employed by NCPS, which is

a Nabors subsidiary.36           It is undisputed that La    Garza and Adame both alleged that they were

injured at the worþlace and/or in the course and scope of their employment.3T

          30.      De La Garza and Adame signed an acknowledgement that specifically states,                   "I

have received a copy             of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program...and          understand that   I   am

required to adhere to the Dispute Resolution Program and its requirement for submission of

disputes to...arbitration."38         All of these   terms are clearly defined in the DRP.

          31.      The DRP clearly and unequivocally states that               it   "applies to and binds the

Company, each Employee and Applicant."3e The DRP defines "Dispute" to include any personal

injury that is incurred at the worþlace or in the course and scope of employment.a0 According

to the DRP, "Company" means "Sponsor and every direct and indirect subsidiary...of Sponsor,

(and) any Electing Entity."+t

36 Nicholson Aff.atn T 6, ll through 15; see a/so Plaintiffs Original Petition and First Amended Petition, and
Adame's Original Petition in Intervention and First Amended Petition in Intervention.
37 S¿e Plaintifls Original Petition and First Amended Petition and Adame's Original Petition in Intervention and

First Amended Petition in Intervention.
38
   NicholsonAlf. atfltf 13 and 16; see also Exhibits l-H and 1-I (emphasis added).
3e,S¿e Exhibit 1-4, at rlf l.
ao,S¿¿ Exhibit 1-A at !f 2(E).
al See Exhibit 1-A at 2(D).
                      !f
              32.      Nabors is the "Sponsor" of the DRP.a2 NCPS is a subsidiary of Nabors.a3 Penn

Virginia is an "Electing Entify" and agreed that it is bound by the terms of the DRP.44 Therefore,

Penn Virginia falls within the scope of the "Company."

              33.      The parties' claims clearly fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Consequently, Penn Virginia's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted and this case

should be abated or dismissed and compelled to final and binding arbitration.

                                                           V. CONCLUSION

              34.      Nabors has instituted a comprehensive dispute resolution program, which requires

arbitration       of   disputes between the Company (which                  is defined   as Nabors Industries, Inc., its

subsidiaries, and any "Electing Entity") and current or former employees. De La Garza and

Adame unequivocally agreed to adhere to the DRP and its requirement to submit all claims to

arbitration. The DRP applies to personal injuries that occur at the worþlace or while the

employee         is in the course and scope of his employment. Therefore, the parties' claims, as

asserted       in this lawsuit, are subject to the terms of the DRP. Consequently, Penn Virginia's

Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted and this case should be abated or dismissed and

compelled to final and binding arbitration.

                                                                 PRAYER

             For the foregoing reasons, PENN VIRGINIA OIL                        &   GAS, L.P. and PENN VIRGINIA

OIL & GAS GP, LLC request that the Court grant this Motion, abate or dismiss this action, and

order that the claims asserted by Alfredo De La Garza,Individually and as Next Friend of                              I

                                                              , and Intervenor, John Paul Adame, Individually and as

Next Friend          of                                                                                                    , be

42
     Nicholson Aff.    atl4;      see also   Exhibit 1-4, at fl 2(L).
43
     NicholsonAff.     atl   6.
4    See   Nicholson Aff.    at\l7     through L0; see also Exhibits l-C and 7-8, at Contractors Special Provisions,llí.
compelled to final and binding arbitration. PENN VIRGINIA       OIL & GAS, L.P, and PENN

VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC further request all other relief to which they are entitled.

                                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                  /s/ Thomas J. Smith
                                                  Thomas J. Smith
                                                    State Bar No. 00788934
                                                    tsmith@gallowayj ohnson. com
                                                  Kelly C. Hartmann
                                                    State Bar No. 24055631
                                                    khartmann@gall owayj ohn son. c om
                                                  Alexis B. Hester
                                                    State Bar No. 24072807
                                                    ahester @gall owayj ohns on. com
                                                  G¡nowev, JoFrNSoN, TotuprrNs
                                                   Bunn &   Svnn
                                                  1301 McKinney, Suite 1400
                                                  Houston, Texas 77010
                                                  (713) s99-0700
                                                  (7 I 3) 599-07 77 - facsimile

                                                  Attorneys for Defendants, Penn VÍrgÍnia
                                                  OÍI8t Gas, L.P. and Penn VirgÍnÍa OiI &
                                                  Gas GP,   LLC
                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I hereby certiff that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served
electronically, by and through the Court approved electronic filing manager, to participating
parties on this 18th day of June 2015, as follows:

John David Hart                                      J. Javier Gutierrez
Llw Orrrcns  OF    Jorn   D.nvrn   Hlnr              Ana Laura Gutierrez
Wells Fargo Tower                                    Tun GurrnRnnzLtw Fmvr, Inc.
201 Main Street, Suite 1720                          700 East Third Street
Fort V/orth, T exas 7 6102                           Alice, Texas 78332
Phone 817-870-2102                                   Phone 361-664-7377
Fax 817-332-5858                                     Fax     361-664-7245
Counsel for Plaintiff, Individually and as           Counsel for fntervenor,
Next Friend of                                       .fohn Paul Adøme, Indìvìdually and øs Next
                        Minor Chíldren               Friend of

Benjamin A. Escobar, Jr.
Brit T. Brown
BEIRNE' M¡yll,lRn & Plnson, L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77056
Phone 713-623-0887
Fax    713-960-1527
Coansel  for Defendant, Cudd Pressure
Control, Inc.

                                              /s/ Thomas.I. Smith
                                              Thomas J. Smith
                                        CAUSE NO. 2014-42519

ALFREDO DE LA GARZA,                                  $             IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDIVIDUALLY ANC1 AS NEXT FRIEND                      $
FOR                                                   $
                                    mlnoïs            $
                                                      $
                                                      ç                 HARRIS COLINTY, TEXAS
                                                      $
PENN VIRGINIA OlL & GAS, LP,                          0
PENN VIRGINIA OIL & GAS GP, LLC,                      $
MIKE FERGUSON, TRIFECTA                               0
OILFiËLD SERVICES, LLC, CUDD                          $
PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.,                               $
ROYWELL SERVICES,INC. and OAI(S                       Ò

PERSONNEL SERVICES, lNC. cllb/a                       $
                                                                                 ST
THE OAI(S GROUP                                       a                 28   1        JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                                             VE,RIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS                  $
                                $
COUNTY OF HARRIS                $

       BEFORE ME, the undersignecl authority on this day personally appeared Thomas                      J.

Smith, who after being cluly sworn upon his oath stated as follows:

1.     "My narne is Thomas J. Smith. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age. I am of                 sound

mincl anct in all ways competent to make this verification,

2.      I   am one of the attomeys of record for Dcfendants, Penn Virginia Oil            &   Gas, L.P. and

Penn Virginia    Oil & Gas GP, LLC. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit

and those facts are truc and correct.

3.      I   have revicwcd the foregoing Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate this case

pcnding such arbitration. In nly personal knowledge, the Motion truly and correctly recites the

factual allegations set forth in tire pleadings ancl the evidence in the trial court record,"
                                                   J

       SUBSCRIBED ÀND,SWORN TO before me a notary public, which witness mY hand
and seal of this office this/fday of June, 2015.

                                           Notary Public in and for   ofTexas
                THoNDA SÇilMrZ
           Nolory Publlc, Slote of Texqs
             MyCommlsslon Êxpkcs
              Dacrmber 13,2018
                                      CAUSE NO. 2014-42519

ALFREDO DE LA GARZA,                                $           IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
INDIVIDUALLY ANd AS NEXT FRIEND                     $
FOR                                                 $
                              , minors              $
                                                    $
                                                    $               HARRIS COLINTY, TEXAS
                                                    $
PENN VIRGINIA OTL &, GAS, LP,                       $
PENN VIRGINIA OTL & GAS GP, LLC,                    $
MIKE FERGUSON, TRIFECTA                             $
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, CUDD                        $
PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.,                             $
ROYV/ELL SERVICES, INC. and OAKS                    $
PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/A                      $
                                                                           ST
THE OAKS GROUP                                      $               28 I        JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                             AFFIDAVIT OF KEITH NICHOLSON

STATE OF'TEXAS                $
                              $
                              ,*
COLINTY OF HARzuS             Y

         Before me, the undersigned notaryo on this day personally appeared Keith Nicholson, the
affrant, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to affiant, the
affiant testified:

I      "My name is Keith Nicholson. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and capable of
       making this affidavit. The facts stated in this affrdavit are within my personal knowledge
       and are true and correat.

2.     I am Assistant General Counsel for Nabors Corporate Services, Inc.
a
J      In my capacity as Assistant General Counsel, I am required to be familiar with Nabors
       Industries, Inc.'s corporate structure and the relationship of its various subsidiaries and
       affiliated companies. I am also required to be familiar with the Nabors Dispute
       Resolution Program ("DIUt"¡.

4      Nabors Industries, Inc. is the "Sponsor" of the Nabors DRP as that term is defined by the
       DRP. A true and correct copy of the DRP is attached to my affrdavit as Exhibit 1-4.

5      The DRP provides that it applies to all direct and indirect subsidiaries of Nabors
       Inclustries, Inc., as well as all "Electing Entities" that have agreed to be bound by same.

6.     Nabors Completion    &      Production Services Co. ("NCPS") was a subsidiary of Nabors

                                         EXHIBIT        "I"
      Industries, Inc. at the time of the Aprl|29,2014 incident which makes the basis of the
      lawsuit.

7     On September 23,2008, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP agreed to be bound by the DRP as
      an "Electing Entity" in the "Contractors Special Provisions" containsd in the International
      Association of Drilling Contractors ("IADC") Drilling Contract between it and Nabors
      Drilling USA LP. A true and correct copy of the IADC Contract is attached in its entirety
      to my affidavit as Exhibit 1-8. The Contractors Special Provisions portion has been
      putled out for reference and is attached as Exhibit 1-C.

I     The Contractors Special Provisions page states at paragraph l6 that "Operator, its parent,
      subsidiary, and affiliated corporations,..(collectively "Operator") is cognizant of the
      Nabors Dispute Resolution Program and wishes to become an Electing Entity, as defined
      in that Program. Accordingly, Operator and Nabors Industries, Inc. ("Nabors") hereby
      agree that Operator is an Electing Entity..."

9     In addition, on September 8,2010, Perur Virginia MC Energy, LLC agreed to be bound
      by the DRP as an "Electing Entity" in the "Contractors Special Provisions" contained in
      the International Association of Drilling Contractors ("IADC") Drilling Contract between
      it and Nabors Drilling USA LP. A true and correct copy of the IADC Contract is attached
      in its entirety to my affidavit as Exhibit I -D. The Contractors Special Provisions portion
      has been pulled out for reference and is attached as Exhibit l-E. It is my understanding
      that Penn Virginia MC Energy, LLC is a subsidiary or affiliated corporation of Penn
      Virginia Oil & Gas, LP andlor Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC,

l0    As an "Electing Entity," Defendants, Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP and Penn Virginia Oil
      & Gas GP, LLC are required to resolve disputes with any past or present employee(s) or
      applicant(s) of Nabors Industries, Inc. or its subsidiaries in accordance with the DRP.

l1    Based upon my review of the personnel file of Mr. Adame, I can confirm that Mr. Adame
      was employed by NCPS, and that he executed various documents that acknowledged that
      he received, reviewed, and accepted the terms and conditions of the DRP.

12,   Specifically, my review of the relevant documents confirms that on January 2,2013,Mr.
      Adame executed a document entitled "Application For Hourly And Daily Employment,"
      ahue and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-F. Mr. Adame acknowledged
      and agreed by his signature that he is "required to adhere to the Dispute Resolution
      Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to...arbitration."

13    Further, on January 7,2013, Mr. Adame executed a document entitled "Employee
      Acknowledgement Concerning Nabors Dispute Resolution Progtam," a true and correct
      copy of which is attached as Exhibit l-H. The document specif,rcally states, "I have
      received a copy of the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program." Mr. Adame acknowledged
      and agreed by his signature that he is "required to adhere to the Dispute Resolution
      Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to.,.arbitration."
t4.   Mr. Adame was employed by NCPS as a crew worker. As a crew worker, Mr. Adame's
      job duties and responsibitities included the operation of hand and power tools to perform
      maintenance and repairs to oil or gas wells and related equipment. Mr. Adame's job
       duties also involved activities associated with rigging-up and rigging-down work over
      rigs, pulling levers or turning handles to extend hydraulic or screw-type jacks to support
      and level the rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing, and other tasks
      necessary to support operations. While employed by NCPS, Mr. Adame was never a
      commercial truck driver or transportation worker.

l5    Based upon my review of the personnel frle of Mr, Alfredo De La Gatza,I can confirm
      that Mr. De La Garza was employed by NCPS, and that he executed various documents
      that acknowledged that he received, reviewed, and accepted the terms and conditions of
      the DRP.

16    Specifically, my review of the relevant documents confir'ms that on July 16, 2013, Mr. De
      La   Garza executed     a document entitled "Application For Hourly And Daily
      Employment," a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-G. By his
      signature, Mr. De La Garza acknowledged and agreed that he is "required to adhere to the
      Dispute Resolution Program and its requirement for submission of all claims
      to. ..arbitration,"

17.   Further, on July 22,2013, Mr. De La Garza executed a document entitled "Employee
      Aoknowledgement Concerning Nabors Dispute Resolution Program," a true and conect
      copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1-I. The document specifically states, "I have
      received    a oopy of the Nabors Dispute      Resolution Program."     Mr. De La     Garua
      acknowledged and agreed by his signature that he is "required to adhere to the Dispute
      Resolution Program and its requirement for submission of all claims to. . . arbitration."

18    Mr. De LaGarua was employed by NCPS as a crew worker. As a crew worker, Mr. De
      La Garza'sjob duties and responsibilities included the operation of hand and power tools
      to perform maintenance and repairs to oil or gas wells and related equipment. Mr. De La
       Garza's job duties also involved activities associated with rigging-up and rigging-down
      work over rigs, pulling levers or turning handles to extend hydraulic or screw-type jacks
      to support and level the rig, laying steel production rods, tubing, and casing, and other
      tasks necessary to support operations. Mr. De La Garza'sjob duties and responsibilities
      did not include the movement of goods in interstate commerce. While employed by
      NCPS, Mr. De LaGarza was never a commercial truck driver or transportation worker.

19.   At all times relevant to this matter, NCPS was engaged in interstate commerce as it was
      in the business of providing services for the development of oil and gas resources that are
      placed into commerce in both Texas and other states of the United States.

20.   On information and beliet Penn Virginia is also engaged in interstate commorce as it is
      in the business of producing oil and gas resources that are placed into commerce in both
      Texas and other states of the United States.
21    Attached as Exhibitl-A to my affidavit is a true and correct copy of Nabors Industries,
      Inc.'s DRP booklet, in English and Spanish, respectively. These records are kept by
      Nabors Industries, Inc. in the regular course and scope of business, and it was the regular
      course of business of Nabors Industries,Inc. for an employee or representative of Nabors
      Industries, Inc,, with knowledge of the act ot event that was recorded, to make these
      rçcords or to transmit the information to be included in these records. These records were
      made at or near the time or reasonably soon after the act or event that was recorded.

22.   Attached as Exhibit 1-B to my affidavit is a true and correct copy of the 2008 IADC
      Drilling Contract between Nabors and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas, LP, and attached as
      Exhibit l-C is a true and correct copy of the portion of the IADC contract titled
      "Contractors Special Provisions." These records are kept by Nabors Industries, Inc. in the
      regular course and scope of business, and it was the regular course of business of Nabors
      Industries, Inc. for an employee or representative of Nabors Industries, Inc., with
      knowledge of the act or event that was recorded, to make these records or to transmit the
      information to be included in these records. These records werc made at or near the time
      or reasonably soon after the act or event that was recorded.

23    Attached as Exhibit  l-D to my affidavit is a true and correct copy of the 2010 IADC
      Drilling Contract between Nabors and Penn Virginia MC Energy, LLC, and attached as
      Exhibit 1-E is a true and correct copy of the portion of the IADC contract titled
      "Contractors Special Provisions." These records are kept by Nabors Industries, Inc. in the
      regular course and scope ofbusiness, and it was the regular course ofbusiness ofNabors
      Industries, Inc. for an employee or representative of Nabors Industries, Inc., with
      knowledge of the act or event that was recorded, to make these records or to transmit the
      information to be included in these records. These records were made at or near the time
      or reasonably soon after the act or event that was recorded.

24.   The records attached as Exhibits 1-F, 1-G, 1-H, and 1-I are true and correct copies of
      records that are kept by NCPS in the regular course and scope of business, and it was the
      regular course of business of NCPS for an employee or representative of NCPS, with
      knowledge of the act or event that was recorded, to make these records or to transmit the
      information to be included in these records. These records were made at or near the time
      the act or event that was recorded."

                                           FUR

      Sworn to and subscribed before me by                      on the   dâ*   ofJune,20l5

                                                            ú                  -l-
                                                                               (.>-
                                           Notary         in and for the       ofTexas
          MAnY D.   HotstiletoN
       Notory Publlc, Slole ot fetos
                                           My Commission expires
         My CommlErlon Explre8
              Moy 05,   20tt
   NABORS DISPUTE RESOLUTION
       PROGRAM and RULES

Copies of this patnphlel are avqilahle in S¡tanislt, upon
     vç.q'u   e S   t, .fr"rs   m   a   nj'   Jtl6   b or'ç s u Í¡ s i d i a 4t' s Hu ntcut
                                Re s out'ce          s D eP arl m e nt.

C.opías de este             folleîo           e   sl:Qtt   disponible en español, con
    sal.o requer'ùlas al Depa.rlamettîo de Recursos
    t"t,, * -.,n a n r-         ¡"'f¡A*,'t ñ t, ^..^
                                 EX}fl BI T'                                   ^t^
 TIIE   I.   BORS DISPUTE RESOLUTION                  P}   GRAM

1.   Purpose and Construction

     The Prograrn is designed to plovide &means for the quick,
     fair, accessible, and inexpensive resôluti.on of Disputes
     between        Company and the Company's
                    the
     present and formei Employees and Applicants for
     enrploynrent, related fo or arising out of a current fo¡mer
     or potenlial employment relationship with the Company.
     The Program is intended to oreatÉ a¡r exclusive procedural
     mechanisnr for the filal resolution of all Disputes falling
     within its tenns. It is not inteuded either to abridge or
     enlarge zubstantive rights available under applieäblë lãw
     The Program contractually modifi es the'oat-wilf ' ernploy-
     ilreûf relatiorrship" "bellÀ'eelí the Com¡rany "and its -'
     Employees, but only to the extent expressly stated in the
     Program. The Program should be interpreted in accor-
     dance with these PutPoses.

2,   I)cfÏnitions

     A,   '¿AAA" meâns the A¡nerican Arbitration Association'

     B.   "JAMS' means Judíoial Arbitration and Mediation
          Servises,

     C. The 'oAcÎ"        meâns the Federal Arbi'ration Act,
          9 U.S.C.ô1, et seq., as a¡rended from time to time'

     D.   "Coflipâny" means Sponsor and every direct or
          indirect suhsidiary (whether a co¡poration, limited
          liability company, courpany partnership or other legai
          entity) of Sponsor, any Eiecting Entity, any entity or
          psrson alleged to have joint and several liability
          concerning aly Dispute, and all of their directors,
          officers, employees, and agents, every plan ofbene-
          fits, whether or not tax-exempt, establishcd o¡ main-
          tained by any such entity, the fiduciaries, agents and
          employees ofall suoh plans, and thç successors and
          assÍgns   ofall such entities, plans and   persons; provicl-
          ed, howcver, rhat in the case of an Electing Entity,
          "Company" shall inolude the Electing Entity only to
          the extent provided in the Electing Entity's agreement
          to Lre borurd bY the Program.

     E.   "Dispute" means ali legal ald equitable elaims,
          demands, a¡d controversies, of whatever nature or
          kind, whether in contrac! tort, under staûite or regu'
          lation, or sôme other law, between persons bound by
          tlre Program or by an agleement to resolve Ðisputes
         ler the Program, or between a person I nd by the
      Program and a person or entity otberwise e¡titled to
      its benefits, including, but not litnited to,         any
      matlers wilh respect tol

       1.   this Program;

      2.    the employmenl or potential reemployment of an
            Employee, including the terms, conditions, or
            terrnination    of   such employment with úe
            Company;

      3.    employee'benefits or incidents of employment
            with the Company;

-'   ' 4;                             or concerning"'dre - '
            any-"ul'her'matter rslated -to-
            relationship between the Employee and tire
            Company including, by way of example and
            without limitatio4 allegations ofi discrimination
            based on raoe, sex, religion, national origin, age'
            veteraü status or disabifity; sexual or olher kinds
            of   harassment; workers' ccirnpensafion retalia-
            tiou; defanration; infliction of emotional distress,
            antitrust claim conoeming wages or othorwise, or
            stâtus, claim or membership with regard to any
            employee benefit plan;

      5.    an Applicant's application for employment       and
            the Company's actions and decisions regarding
            such application; and

      6.    any personøJ injury allegedly incurred iu or about
            a Company workplace or in the course and scope
            of   an Employee's employmenl

      "Dispute" includes all such matters regatdless of
      when the events on whioh they are based occurred,
      including nlatters based on events occurrirrg before
      the Ernployee became subject to this Program (so
      long as such disputes were not previously asserted in
      a judicial forurn) or after termination of the employ-
      ment relationship.

F. "Electing       Entity" means arry legal entity that      has
      agreed ts bc bound by the Program as provided herein,

G. "Enployee"       rneans ¡uly person who is or has been in
      the employment of the Company on or afer the effec-
      tive date of this Prograni, rvhether o¡ not ernployed at
      the time a olaim is brought with respecl to a Dispufe,
      residing in the lJnited States, or oflerwise subject to
             laq,s of the Uniied States or any state, ricipality'
          or other polilical subdivision of the Uniteo States,

     t'1. "Applicant"   rneâns âny persôn u'ho is seeking or has
          sought employmont u'ith thp Compary affer the effec'
          tive date of fhis Program.

     I.   "Parly" tì1ealls, with respect to a panicular Dispute'
          afiectcd petsons n¡d/ol enfities bouncl by this
          Prograrn,

     J.   '?rogratn" meatts this l{abols Dispure Rcsolution
          Program, as amelrded fioln time to tirne.

     K. "Rules" means the Nabors Dispute Resolution Rules,
     . .¿s amender;¡ririiritliù¡r I

{he tenlls             olthis provisiun         as a contìilictlt   olnty      enlpioylllLr¡ìi   ijr crjrlfilrltcttscl¡iirìl;ento nìultlo y pt¡c(iÙ
{ìtiedar cosartc cl1 ciraìc¡uiei'tì1or]1ctrro, y¿ì sea pof tRi ¡rr:'lo r¡ Por l)tr(c de Ìa OOtnprrilia, sil: avisO ¡rtcvil:
                                                                                                                                t;
prcsen{ación              d   e c¿rr¡sn.

yo conrp'e:rdr; r¡rre rt)nguria                   ¡rar1c Cel ccnlcltirJo cicl Ptograinn <{c }ì.c:;nl,tcir¡:rt::t
de         viol¿io linrí!ar. los cictochos de los crlpioados gär'ilrrlizados por-el es{ldo o lirr lcy+s íi<{cr¡lc.s

(ìorr nti     tccÒnozcg y entiùndo que sc rcquiere {Ltc yc ;uiripla c.rn cl I)Iôgì'1llra 966

S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 1998) (quoting Garcia v. Kastner

Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex. 1989) (emphasis added)). “In other words,

this standard “encompasses the negligence of counsel as a reasonable explanation.”

Dimotsis, 966 S.W.2d at 657.

       7.      In Dimotsis v. Lloyds, a 1998 case out of the San Antonio Court of

Appeals, the attorney seeking the deadline filed a verified statement in which he

explained that he “erroneously calculated the perfection deadline by adding thirty

1
  The deadline for Penn Virginia to file its Notice of Appeal fell on October 1, 2015, which was
twenty days after the September 11, 2015 Order denying the Motion to Compel Arbitration was
issued. Fifteen days from October 1, 2015 was October 16, 2015. Penn Virginia filed its Notice
of Appeal on October 13, 2015 and filed its Motion to Extend on October 14, 2015.
days to the date the trial court overruled [Appellant’s] motion for new trial.” Id. at

657-58. The Court held that Appellant’s late filing “was not intentional or

deliberate, but was due to her attorney's misunderstanding of the law” and held that

“the explanation offered is a reasonable one.” Id. at 658.

      8.     The Houston First Court of Appeals has accepted similar explanations

as reasonable and has granted an extension when a party’s attorney miscalculated

the deadline to perfect an appeal, but that such error was the result of human error

and a mistake. Hernandez v. Lopez, 288 S.W.3d 180, 184 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (“Because George has also filed a factual explanation

indicating that he, in good faith, believed that he filed on time and had

inadvertently miscalculated the dates, we imply an extension of time, and we

conclude that George's notice of appeal was timely filed.”).

      9.     Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) permits an extension of

time so the Texas Appellate Courts are not immediately divested of jurisdiction

when unintentional errors are made, and so that the substance of appellate issues

may be evaluated and reviewed by the intermediary courts. The Texas Supreme

Court has articulated the proper standard for a “reasonable explanation” and

counsel has sworn that its own mistake was the basis for its failure to timely file.

Counsel who prepared the Notice of Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration had
not reviewed the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure since 2011 and was

unfamiliar with the applicable timeline for filing.

II.    Granting an Extension does not cause Prejudice to Appellees

       10.   Finally, Penn Virginia would show that permitting this extension and

allowing the fifteen day extension to file does not prejudice Appellees in any

manner whatsoever. The original deadline for Penn Virginia to file its Notice of

Appeal fell on October 1, 2015. If a fifteen day extension is granted, the deadline

extends to October 16, 2015. Penn Virginia filed its Notice of Appeal on October

13, 2015 and filed its Motion to Extend on October 14, 2015. Penn Virginia’s two

week delay in filing from October 1, 2015 to October 13, 2015 does not cause any

prejudice or hardship to Appellees.

III.   Penn Virginia should not be punished for the error of counsel

       11.   Penn Virginia would urge this Court to exercise its discretionary

authority and extend jurisdiction over this matter. Penn Virginia filed its Notice of

Appeal within fifteen days after the October 1, 2015 deadline. Penn Virginia did

not deliberately, strategically, or intentionally delay in filing its Notice of Appeal

in an effort to subvert the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure or engage in any

gamesmanship with the trial court or Appellees. Prior to learning of its error,

counsel for Penn Virginia believed that, with the thirty-day deadline, it would have

the opportunity to address the trial court’s specific concerns as to a particular and
nuanced ambiguity in the contracts between Penn Virginia and Nabors. Penn

Virginia should not be penalized for the errors made by its counsel and would

request the opportunity to litigate the issues set forth in its Motion to Compel

Arbitration, particularly the application of the arbitration provisions set forth in the

Nabors Dispute Resolution Program.

                                       PRAYER

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

Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P. pray that this Court grant this Motion to Extend the

Deadline to File a Notice of Appeal and permit Penn Virginia to present to this Court

its arguments and authorities in support of arbitration. 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,

/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
GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS
  BURR & SMITH
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 October 29th, 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,
                                        and Intervenor, Ernesto Gonzalez, Jr.

                                           /s/ Kelly C. Hartmann
                                           Kelly C. Hartmann
                                  r{o. 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 I{EXT OF'F'RIEND
  FOR XXXXXX XX XX XXXXX AND XXXXXXXX XX XX XXXXX,
                        MII{ORS
                                              &
 JOHI{ PAUL ADAME, INDIVIDUALLY AI{D AS NEXT OF'FRIEND OF'
  XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX, XXX, AND
              XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX, MINORS,
                                         Appellees.

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

                       Vnnrnrc¡,TloN oF KELLy C. H¡,nrprlxN

STATE OF TEXAS               $
                             $
COUNTY OF HARRIS             $

       BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared Kelly C.

Hartmann, who after being duly sworn upon his oath stated as follows:
       1.      "My name is Kelly C. Hartmann. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age. I am of

sound mind and in all ways competent to make this affidavit and verification.

       2.      I am one of the attorneys of record for Defendants,    Penn   Virginia Oil & Gas, L.P.

and Penn Virginia    Oil & Gas GP, LLC. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this

affidavit and those facts are true and correct.

       3.      I   have reviewed Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of

Appeal and Appellant's Reply to Appellees' Response to the Motion for Extension of Time to

File Notice of Appeal, In my personal knowledge, the Motion truly and correctly recites the

factual allegations set forth in the pleading."

                                                                C.

                                                          mea        public, which witness my hand
and

                                                          Notary      in and for the         Texas

                              ROBYN S. MORGAN
                          Nolory Public, Sloie of lexos
                            My Commission Expites
                                 July 30, 2018