Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
In any event the reason I am so confident it will be denied at one time or another is pretty simple really. Here is one of many reasons, Read this:
==========
Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998); Eichelberger v. Hayton, 814 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
Here are the only statutes or conditions that allow you to appeal an interlocutory order (PXD's DENIED Motion for summary judgment)
http://law.onecle.com/texas/civil/51.014.00.html
(5) denies a motion for summary judgment that is based on an assertion of immunity by an individual who is an
officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state;
(6) denies a motion for summary judgment that is based in whole or in part upon a claim against or defense by a
member of the electronic or print media, acting in such capacity, or a person whose communication appears in or
is published by the electronic or print media, arising under the free speech or free press clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Article I, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution, or Chapter 73;
============
Sorry PXD last time I checked you don't fall into any of those categories
-Mike
"ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT SIGNED 7/3/2008"
Ron, say what you want about the court and their labeling of documents... They sure did a great job on this document title ;)
Out of all the disposition transcripts I have read I would say there is no chance in hell the Defendants will evade these charges. I don't even think MOSH needs any more evidence but what the heck its just more icing on the cake!
The Defendants really screwed MOSH over.... Infact MOSH is still being royally screwed.... We have three defendants, I see this case now as just a matter of a jury deciding how to break up this $1.2B between three defendants plus punitive damages.
Just wait till Mr. Woodside guy gets on the stand and Mr. Kim drills him on his disposition where he said PXD would not drill on any lease owned in part or in whole by MOSH. Then lets hear how PXD did a sham farmout just to assign them selfs MOSH's property. This is only the beginning.
I am going to take a wild guess and say the COA knows whats up and how dirty PXD is playing. The COA probably wont even give PXD the pleasure of ruling on their Mandamus. Why you ask? Because when the COA rules against PXD changing an INTERLOCUTORY order then PXD will waste judicial resources and move up to the next court and appeal this INTERLOCUTORY order. So the COA will probably wait till trial starts, after trial ends, or even after settlement to deny it.
Bottom line is the order is an INTERLOCUTORY order. Some of you guys might get upset with me saying the COA will sit on this mandamus but I think sitting on it is much smarter than denying it now. Saves time, money and judicial resources.
-Mike
Yes, short and very sweet!
PXD is trying to play dumb and innocent. It is obvious Mr. Kim is extremely confident.
Everything I have read to date is very bullish for MOSH and IMO MOSH has a very strong case. PXD got caught red handed, no excuse.
-Mike
Just want to clarify for you that PXD's motion was never "PASSED".
PXD's motions was just flat out DENIED...
MOSH passed on their motion to compel. I would assume one of two reasons; 1) PXD gave in and gave MOSH a little bit more discovery to chew on. 2) MOSH wants all their motion to be bullet proof so MOSH might need to fix or alter their motion due to PXD's response that was filled the day before MOSH's motion was scheduled to be heard.
If the court told you anything else that the clerk was wrong (again). I already saw this info on Friday and did not comment this time for this very reason...
Hope everyone had a great Labor day weekend!
-Mike
One Motion to compel has been "PASSED". Which one you think???
-Mike
Someone sold a bunch of shares. I think now is the time to be holding MOSH especially since we have a very important ruling soon about discovery. The judge will force the Defendants to turn over everything and she should send a very clear message this Friday. We might hear about it on Friday or on Monday
So far everything that has happened to MOSH has been very bullish! Why would anyone sell? Trial is in about 3 months....
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
Yes I think your sniffer is turned up too high.... Mike does not like to be under any bus so lets quit this misdirection right here. Be careful, it looks like your making false allegations. I can get very defensive and I will never back down. The end result is many on topic post defending myself and and the same time crushing everything you might say in the future even though we are right now both rooting for the same Trust. Some of what I will say may scare away many people. My sniffer is always up too high and not everyone will want to know what I sniff. Take my word for it you will like me better (if at all) the way I am now so stop now dead in your tracks.
Ok now that I got that out if the way I think I already made it clear that no matter what happens with the mandamus I think MOSH will come out still in a winning position.
If you notice PXD did request oral arguments and you can see it does take a while to get that request fulfilled. I was pointing out that time in this case is now AGAINST PXD as they were probably wanted a favorable mandamus ruling BEFORE they are forced to turn over any discovery. You can look on the 14th COA website and see how long the mandamus rulings can take. Most are fast (~1Mo+) and a few are long (~1yr).
So a few things can happen with this mandamus:
1) It is denied as interlocutory
2) It is denied because the judge correctly applied Texas trust law to a Texas trust.
3) The COA finds the judge made an error and finds only conflicted JPM can sue PXD. So MOSH keeps going after JPM where JPM then drags PXD back into this.
4) The COA holds on to it for awhile while they "review" it ;) and in the mean time the trail moves forward and PXD and others hand over everything.
I disagree about trading being suspended. But I do agree that justice will prevail one way or another.
I bet right now Gibbs is probably preparing some mock trials in their fancy office containing a practice court room. They will probably give MU some pills to take to get his nervous sweating under control.
A lawsuit is like preparing for battle and each side gets to see the battle plan. Lawyers are good at identifying risk and can be mature and identify strengths and weaknesses in each others cases. Then and only then I think we will see a settlement. It comes down to the fact that neither side will know 100% what a jury will think and will need to switch to risk mitigation mode. So IMO a settlement will come between 09/29/08 - 12/10/08
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
Thanks! And no I am not...
After looking at other cases at the 14th COA I see many instances where the COA took about a year from first filling to final ruling. Who knows MOSH may get to trial before the COA rules on the mandamus and then the COA can deny it as moot? :)
Especially since PXD requested oral briefs it could take forever to get that. As badnews2 likes to point out the courts are backed up ;)
MOSH has their court date already. Does PXD have a date to have their mandamus heard? No they dont....
-Mike
If MOSH’s arguments were based on common law (case law) then I might be worried on what the COA would rule. The reasoning behind this is Trial courts apply a more strict view of common law where appellate courts have wavered stare decisis (to stick to a decision) and overturned precedent.
But the truth is that MOSH is arguing statutory law which was laid down by legislatures and common law will only be used to interpret the statutory law (Texas trust code). Statutory law (Texas trust code) is far superior to common law (case law).
Unless the statutory law in some way is unconstitutional then it is here to stay. The COA, or any court for that matter, will not need to look outside statutory law to make its decision.
Based on everything I have read it is black and white and the COA will deny PXD’s writ of mandamus or dismiss it and not rule on it at all. Personally I hope they do rule on it so PXD can stop whining about this standing non-issue.
I like how PXD says in their filling that MOSH is kind of like a publicly traded corporation. Last time I checked MOSH is an express Texas trust! LOL!
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
I read MOSH's response again and I was again just blown away!
MOSH is smart and from the documents you can see they are not willing to engage in any arguments that are not valid (because they donut need to)
PXD can argue business trust law, corporation law, Delaware law or whatever they want but Texas express trust code will apply since the trust formation documents expressly state it is an express trust :)
I hope th COA will just rule already but they might not and just say its interlocutory.
-Mike
I believe funds do this to keep this on their watch list. Looks like we have some big boys keeping their eye on MOSH. Nice!
-Mike
My guess is Gibbs had a firm close to the COA file this for him or something like that to make sure this gets filled timely.
The Judge has to be getting upset. The defendants keep challenging her order(s) and they keep trying to delay things and it almost seems like they are whining. This is a joke!
I think it just goes to show how bad PXD needs this to no go to a jury trial. PXD keeping trying to compare this lawsuit to shareholders lawsuits collecting recovery for individual injury. This is NOT an individual injury. Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of the trust because the trustee has failed to act and/or has assigned MOSH standing. PXD is trying very hard to mischaracterize this suit. The law, statutory law, and case law is crystal clear.
-Mike
I am perplexed too!
I think MR. Kim should be made aware of this case. He probably already knows but just incase he did not find it he needs to hear about it now. These are very good arguments to raise. It cant hurt to let him know just incase....
Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-05-00677-CV
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=83597
-Mike
.
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
I agree it should make no difference if the Defendants indented to screw over the trust planning to make a killing and did not make as much as intended .
vs.
I agree it should make no difference if the Defendants indented to screw over the trust planning to make a killing and did not YET make as much as intended.
vs.
The Defendants indented to screw over the trust planning to make a killing and made a killing.
The intent, conspiracy, fraud, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, etc is still the same!
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
I agree MOSH will win the COA mandamus (if the COA even considers hearing it at all).
At trial PXD, JPM and Woodside will most likely argue that they think $1.2B is too much to pay and MOSH is just a group of gold diggers... Or they will still try to argue MOSH has no standing. We are just huge corporations screwing over the passive unit holders and we have been arguing all along Plaintiffs have no right to complain. The big fat corporation must be immune from prosecution from the little guys. (this will be their argument)
IMO both arguments are void and the Defendants still allegedly committed many illegal acts and/or crimes. Even if we were to assume hypothetically that each and every Plaintiff purchased units just to join the suit and to expose the Defendants for what they did it still does not change the fact that the Defendants still allegedly committed many illegal acts and/or crimes to screw over approximately 12,000 unit holders.
A Trust is a legal entity in its own. It is not the group of unit holders suing only for their own good it is the group suing Defendants for the good of the TRUST!! For each and every unit holder!
These plaintiffs should be considered hero's! These plaintiffs are putting up their own money and time to defend the approximately 12,000 that almost got screwed over if it weren't for these Plaintiffs to come forward and stand up for this Mesa Offshore Trust when no one else would!
A jury will show no mercy when they see the trust made hundreds of millions when Mesa was running the show and now that Pioneer is running things the trust is on a slim fast diet and makes sham farm outs just to transfer trust owned property to themselves! Defendants got caught with their hand in the cookie jar with many wrong doings and they have no excuse! The jury will stick it to them hard and will show the public will not let a big energy company or any company for that matter screw over any unit holders ever!
I hope the Defendants do go to Trial. I hope the public gets to see the wrongs they have committed. Unfortunately they will probably do not want to air their dirty laundry and will make this a very quiet settlement.
At a minimum I would say MOSH is entitled to recoup $300M plus pre and post judgment interest and punitive damages from PXD's own documents that say one of the Big Hum intervals holds about $300M worth of gas which PXD never tested (because then the interval would be considered PROVED reserves!)! Then MOSH's experts will show how much more gas exists on the trust property and the former Judge will testify how illegal and/or careless Defendants actions were.
Plus I am sure a Jury would love to hear how the Defendants think the unit holders, the ones getting screwed, have no right to sue the Defendants. The jury will love to hear that....
Plus I am sure the Jury would love to see the fancy Executives that put MIDWAY as one of the commercial discovery's ( >100B mcf of gas) they were apart of on their resume and/or bio! If Midway was "worthless" and PXD says they why do Woodside executive put it in their resume and/or bio???? LOL
Then lets see how Woodside has power point slides saying they were committed to drilling 8 wells on A39 and PXD still claims A39 is worthless?
I can not believe how the Defendant's think they could have gotten away with this!??!?!?!?!
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
I love it too. MOSH basically has every angle covered so no matter what happens with this mandamus MOSH still comes out a winner.
I look forward to the next 3-4 months before our trial date 12/08/2008. The defendants are running out of options and running out of time before a jury trial. Looks like the court wont allow any more delays with this one. It will be interesting to see what happens next and to what lengths PXD, JPM and Woodside will go to prevent handing over any possible incriminating documents ;)
Sanctions anyone? hrrrmmmm....
-Mike
I agree 100% with you ron.
It still nice to know assuming arguendo MOSH would still win if for some reason the COA wanted to issue an opinion now so PXD can not raise this issue again on appeal.
-Mike
The red herrings of this board...
Just as PXD like to throw red herrings many people on this board like to also. I dont know if their intent is to create doubt and get some cheap units, or just to bury all the good post with useless ones but either way red herring post do not deserve a response.
If you cant sniff out the red herring post let me give you an example:
How is an insolvent bank going to pay $1.2B to the defendants??
A post like this is baseless and just a waste of time and does not deserve a response.
-Mike
You have to read this! VERY POSITIVE FACTS!
I found a recent case from the very same 14th COA that challenged "Standing" (on appeal) by arguing to look outside Texas Trust Code very similar to what PXD and Woodside is trying to do right now.
The very same COA we are currently in says "We need not look outside the Texas Trust Code to determine whether [plaintiff] ... has statutory standing ... I would hold that [plaintiff]... has standing to bring ... claims under the Texas Trust Code"
I see PXD tried to also argue that some of the plaintiffs purchased units after the alleged acts by PXD, Woodside and JPM so they were not injured and do not have standing. For MOSH to bring a claim they would not even have to prove or state an actual injury like they would have to do under common law. "Texas Legislature has conferred standing through a statute". There is no distinction of when, where, or why a unit holder purchased their units or if they held units during the alleged act.
This is a great read. After reading this appeal opinion letter I have no doubt in my mind that the 14th COA will affirm the trial courts ruling. In this case the COA clearly said the beneficiary has standing with or without injury. I have no doubt about it unless the 14th COA would go completely against their opinion from July 10, 2007 (which will not happen)
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=83597
It is real obvious that the Defendants are hoping the COA will follow the red herring and the Plaintiffs point out...
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
PIONEERS MOTION FOR STAY DENIED!!!!!!
Spoke with court clerk and she stated that Pioneers motion for a stay was DENIED!
WOW!!!! PXD will have to try much harder to delay this case I guess. This judge will not put up with any BS.
Court Clerk's Phone Number: 713-368-6500
Case number 2006-01984
-Mike
Awww.... You mean we cant use Australian law? ;)
Why does PXD have to be such a whacka? Guess they do what they got to do to make a quick quid?
Once this is over we will all be some tall poppies...
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
UPDATE - MOSHers file documents?
According to the COA:
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90792
So MOSH filed a "Response" and a "Record"? Even though the link shows otherwise, looks like Amicus curiae brief was filed BEFORE MOSH's "Response" and "Record".
Perhaps they already responded to Woodside’s document then.... Hrrrmmmm
So who’s buying? 0.10 a page :)
-Mike
UPDATE - MOSHers go MOSHin
The voices I sometimes hear in my head may have told tell me or someone else….
PXD's mandamus is completely based on Delaware law which mean shit in Texas. (The short version) is PXD is moving on the fact that some case law (from Delaware) says unit holders or stock holders can not sue anyone for anything. PXD says that if they are correct then MOSHers cant even sue the trustee (JPM) and this whole lawsuit will just blow away like tumbleweed.
Looks like PXD management might blow away with the tumbleweed
So the defendants can all conspire together to screw the trust and the unit holders have no legal recourse? Maybe true in Delaware but not Texas!… HAHA! No matter what happens in the COA expect the loser to go to the Texas supreme court next
You will see an update on the motion to stay ruling soon, check the link with the case inquiry link on the court site for the fastest status.
-Mike
UPDATE - MOSHers go MOSHin
The voices I sometimes hear in my head may have told tell me or someone else….
PXD's mandamus is completely based on Delaware law which mean shit in Texas. (The short version) is PXD is moving on the fact that some case law (from Delaware) says unit holders or stock holders can not sue anyone for anything. PXD says that if they are correct then MOSHers cant even sue the trustee (JPM) and this whole lawsuit will just blow away like tumbleweed.
Looks like PXD management might blow away with the tumbleweed
So the defendants can all conspire together to screw the trust and the unit holders have no legal recourse? Maybe true in Delaware but not Texas!… HAHA! No matter what happens in the COA expect the loser to go to the Texas supreme court next
You will see an update on the motion to stay ruling soon, check the link with the case inquiry link on the court site for the fastest status.
-Mike
Yep thats what I'm thinking [EOM]
From a statistical point of view here are the results of my research of rulings on writ of mandamus going back to mid 2002
554 were DENIED (Appellee wins)
68 were GRANT[ed] (Appellant wins)
I am not saying by any means that the appeal is a statistics game. I just thought this was interesting to share.
From a quick search online I see less than 33 instances where the 14th held that the trial court abused its discretion and the appellate court granted the petitions for writ of mandamus. In other words, it rarely happens. This was a quick dirty search so TIFWIW
I think the petition for writ of mandamus will be DENIED and the PPS will shoot up a bit. This will just prove how solid MOSH's position really is....
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
From a statistical point of view here are the results of my research of rulings on writ of mandamus going back to mid 2002
554 were DENIED (Appellee wins)
68 were GRANT[ed] (Appellant wins)
I am not saying by any means that the appeal is a statistics game. I just thought this was interesting to share.
From a quick search online I see less than 33 instances where the 14th held that the trial court abused its discretion and the appellate court granted the petitions for writ of mandamus. In other words, it rarely happens. This was a quick dirty search so TIFWIW
I thinks the petition for writ of mandamus will be DENIED and the PPS will shoot up a bit. This will just prove how solid MOSH's position really is....
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
instructmba, so I was jumping the gun about the court of appeals....? You sure about that??? :P
This is why every detail counts. Sure you may see that rule 13.5 is for "Appointing Deputy Reporter" but if you look even harder at the one page document you see it was under the rules of appellate procedure.
-Mike
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
From looking at how long the long other cases at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals take I expect this to be resolved in 2 weeks to 3 months.
All depending on if either side request a continuance while they prepare responses, if the court allows oral arguments, how long it takes them to rule. You can follow the progress with the information below. Looks like we do not get to see any of the documents filed or at least I cant figure it out. Does any one know what PXD is complaining about? Anyone have the petition for writ of mandamus?
Case Number: 14-08-00655-CV
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90792
-Mike
.<font color=green>Thanks, you too! Yes that old equitable thing :)
PXD is waisting money on a motion that they know will get denied. I do however admire the determination and skills of the defense lawyers to throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. They truly are good at what they do and in most cases will defeat an average lawyer. But from the quality of Mr. Kim, et al work I can see MOSH has a super lawyer! :D
This is one of the many reasons PXD's mandamus will be denied and trial will not be delayed:
============
It is only when the trustee cannot or will not
enforce the cause of action that he has
against the third person that the beneficiary
is allowed to enforce it. In such a case, the
beneficiary is not acting on a cause of action
vested in him, but is acting for the trustee,
and the period of the statute of limitations
should be computed from the time the trustee
acquired his right to sue.
Interfirst Bank-Houston, N.A., v. Quintana
Petroleum Corporation, 699 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.
Civ. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ
ref'd n.r.e.); 29 Tex. Jur. 3d Decedents'
Estates Sec. 711 (1983);869 Bogert ,supra 92.
In this type of suit the beneficiary is seeking recovery
to the trust estate (rather than personally).
====================
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
.<font color=green>ONLY ask for a mandamus if you're willing to have your client's heart broken...
First, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure don't require the appellate courts to explain their decision to deny a mandamus petition. Appellate rule 47 requires the courts to hand down a written opinion that addresses every issue raised in an appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Mandamus is an original proceeding, not an appeal. So the courts don't have to issue a written opinion in mandamus cases; in fact, they usually don't.
Preparing a mandamus petition takes a lot of work and expertise. There are technical rules covering mandamus proceedings that have to be followed. You have to prepare a mandamus record that includes every document necessary to show the court of appeals why it should grant your mandamus petition. And your mandamus petition usually should state every fact and argument relevant to your case. Typically, you're filing a mandamus petition under time pressures, and the work will require long days, nights, and weekends before you have a finished product.
After you do all that work, the court of appeals is entitled to quickly deny your petition without an explanation. Often the ruling will come the same day, sometimes within hours. Sometimes, the appellate panel will issue a short opinion giving a reason, but often you don't know. Unless you give your client advance warning of the likelihood that you'll spend days working on the petition, but that the appellate court is likely to summarily deny it, you may find yourself embarrassed by the quick turn-around. It's usually nothing personal; the appellate courts are just extremely reluctant to grant a mandamus petition.
There's a second reason why mandamus is such an unreliable remedy. Mandamus is supposed to be available whenever the trial court commits a clear abuse of discretion and there is no other legal remedy available to fix the error. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d at 839. It's intended to be the final failsafe remedy that ensures every lawsuit is tried under the governing law. Nevertheless, Texas appellate courts have developed a doctrine that they have "discretion" to deny the writ. See Scott v. Twelfth Court of Appeals, 843 S.W.2d 439, 442-45 (Tex. 1992) (Hecht, J., dissenting).
========================================================
So basically PXD has to prove the Honorable Sharon McCally is wrong AND there is no other legal remedy to fix this error other than this mandamus. Good luck with that...
-Mike
Remember PXD can file what ever they want but the judge will need to hear the arguments and rule in equity.
Do you think the judge will let the defendants delay this intentionally after about 4 years? After the Defendants blamed Plaintiffs of delaying this and claimed that the Defendants are "ready to try this case" and "enough is enough"...
-Mike
*Disclaimer: My post are possibly fictional and/or are my opinion. I assume no liability, nor do I guarantee any stock's performance. Please do your own due diligence.
A plea in abatement or dilatory plea is basically intended for delay. Maxim delays in law are odious...
I would assume this was filled by PXD. I am not surprised they want to delay the case ;)
Haven t they said numerous times that they are "ready to try this case"??? Looks bullish for MOSH to me!
-Mike
.<font color=green>PLEA IN ABATEMENT (TRCP 120A) 08/15/2008
http://apps.jims.hctx.net/courts/CaseInquiry.do?pageid=Case%20Setting%20History%20Inquiry&pagecode=HI&clr=Y
-Mike
Ron, your probably right. Looking again at the context of the document 38840352 and looking at a different site ( http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/TRAP/trap-jan07.htm#s1r13 ) I believe I was wrong.....
Looks like the reporter was sick or something (13.5 Appointing Deputy Reporter). I have no idea how that other rules popped up and what they are
Please feel free to delete me last few post as I now believe they are inaccurate and don't want to confuse people.
-Mike
Yes "Passed" usually means the motion will not be heard. Someone "Passed" on having the motion(s) heard.
For example in in the past the judge had "Passed" on ruling on MSJ's until recently where she "denied" many of them in our favor.
If the judge were to rule on something then you would see "Granted", "Denied", or "Granted in part". So now I wonder why this was passed. I see PXD's motion and MOSH's motion was "Passed".
I would assume one of five things;
1) They passed the motion because they got what they want so they no longer need a motion (I doubt it as that would be too fast)
2) They passed it because of a scheduling conflict.
3) They had a conference call with everyone (including judge) and she yelled at them and said to play nice or else.
4) Some issue, point, or response was raised that required the motions to be updated so they were "passed" until a new copy could be filled.
5) Defendants said ok. "enough is enough" ;) and want to enter settlement talks and both decided to "pass" on having their motions heard while they "talk".
One other thing I thought that was interesting was the fact MOSH's motion was first set for 08/22/2008. That is pretty far out in the future. I wound why they would push this out so far. You would think the want this info ASAP right?
Thats great stuff Ron. But one question.... Why do they all show as passed???
The defendants will settle.... Give them time.
-Mike
I 100% agree we the right man leading us. This guy is always 3 steps ahead of PXD and the other defendants from what I can see in public filings.
I was researching some of the arguments PXD tried to raise and looks like they just respond with any old BS hoping MOSH wont make a second attempt. We should throw as much case law as we can at them and make them think twice about raising BS objections.
-Mike
.<font color=green>MR KIM! IF YOUR READING THIS BOARD... Dont forget!
The Texas Supreme Court has identified requests as overbroad when they encompass time periods, activities, or products that are not relevant to the case at hand. See In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 n.1 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding).
The volume generated from a request does not render the request burdensome.A See In re lford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d at 181 n.1. We also recognize that, A[t]o the extent that a discovery request is burdensome because of the responding party's own conscious, discretionary decisions [for example, the unorganized storage of inactive patient records], that burdensomeness is not properly laid at the feet of the requesting party, and cannot be said to be >undue.=@ ISK Biotech Corp. Lindsay, 933 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding).
Discovery requests must not be overly broad, but reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case. In re Xeller, 6 S.W.3d 618, 626 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding).
Please also See In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d at 713
You probably already know this but in case you didn't find it yet I hope it help you!
-Mike