Preview
FILED
4/27/2020 11:41AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO.,TEXAS
DEPUTY
Terri Kilgore
CAUSE NO. DC- 1 8-05402
EARMON LOVERN, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PEGGY LOVERN,
STORMY LOVERN
Plaintifls,
VS.
Cmomomcmomomcmomomcmomom
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
EAGLERIDGE OPERATING, LLC, and
USG PROPERTIES BARNETT II, LLC,
Defendants 192ml JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, Plaintiffs in the above-styled and numbered cause, and file this Motion for
Expedited Preferential Trial Setting, and in support 0f same hereby state as follows:
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As the Court will likely recall, this is a traumatic brain injury case arising from a gas
pipeline explosion that occurred 0n or about August 24, 2017. The well and all pumping
equipment and trade fixtures on site were owned by Defendant USG. Defendant USG, however,
hired Defendant Eagleridge Operating to serve as the Operator in charge of the well Who was
responsible for the safety 0f the well and its equipment. Plaintiff Earmon Lovern was a pumper.
As a pumper, Earmon helped monitor this well and others by reading the meters, recording tank
levels, and logging this information into a computer system for Eagleridge, and occasionally
’
Plaintiffs Motionfor Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page I
restarting a compressor by pressing a reset button if it had shut off. On the day in question, a
pressurized pipeline attached t0 the compressor blew up in Earmon’s face when itwas restarted.
This pipeline was heavily corroded, deteriorated, was literally paper thin, and constituted a deadly
dangerous time bomb.
Earmon suffered catastrophic injuries in the explosion including first degree chemical and
thermal burns t0 his head, face, neck, abdomen, and the inside 0f his nose and mouth. He suffered
from an acute pulmonary injury due t0 the inhalation 0f chemicals from the explosion that
continues t0 plague him t0 this day. He further suffered a blunt trauma injury t0 his left eye
requiring several surgeries and Which continues to have impairment. And, most significantly,
Earmon received and continues to suffer from a traumatic brain injury that has literally changed
the man, father and husband that he once was.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As the Court knows, this case has certainly been fully litigated for two years now and was
0n the verge of its third trial setting when Defendant Eagleridge filed a writ 0f mandamus with the
Dallas Court 0f Appeals challenging the soundness of this Court’s order striking as a responsible
third party Aruba Petroleum—the prior operator and partial owner 0f the well.
By way of reminder, Plaintiffs provide the following brief relevant procedural history:
o April 24, 2018 — Plaintiffs’ filed their Original Petition in this Court.
o January 2, 2019 — The parties entered into an Agreed Scheduling Order setting this case
for jury trial t0 begin September 16, 2019.
o September 3, 2019 — After the parties had completed all discovery, after all discovery and
expert deadlines had concluded, and after the parties had engaged in multiple lengthy
motions and hearings on a variety of legal issues, and as the parties were approaching pre-
trial deadlines, the Court was forced t0 briefly reset this case for jury trial t0 begin October
14, 2019 due to a scheduling conflict with the Court.
’
Plaintiffs Motionfor Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 2
o September 5, 2019 — The Court issued its Order Striking Aruba Petroleum as a
Responsible Third Party.
0 September 12, 2019 — The Court again briefly reset the jury trial setting t0 begin
November 4, 2019 due to a vacation letter on file by Counsel for Defendant Eagleridge.
o September 24, 2019 — Defendant Eagleridge filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus,
Motion for Temporary Relief, and Emergency Stay seeking mandamus relief from the
Order issued by the Trial Court on September 5, 2019 Striking Aruba Petroleum as a
Responsible Third Party.
o October 28, 2019 — The Dallas Court of Appeals granted Defendant Eagleridge’s Motion
and stayed the underlying proceedings pending its resolution of the petition for writ 0f
mandamus.
o January 24, 2020 — The Court 0f Appeals DENIED Defendant Eagleridge’s Petition for
Writ of Mandamus.
o February 7, 2020 — Defendant Eagleridge filed a Motion For Rehearing/Reconsideration
With the Court 0f Appeals.
o Februarv 26, 2020 — The Court oprpeals DENIED Eagleridge’s Motion For Rehearing.
0 March 12, 2020 — Defendant Eagleridge filed yet another Motion for Rehearing
Reconsideration, this time seeking En Banc review.
o April 22, 2020 — The Court of Appeals DENIED Eagleridge’s Motion for Reconsideration
En Bane.
Defendant Eagleridge has now exhausted itsremedies with the Dallas Court 0f Appeals
and this matter is primed to be promptly reset for trial so that the Lovern family may move forward
with having their day in Court.
III.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED
PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING IN 2020
Plaintiffs and their counsel are certainly very sensitive t0 the current COVID 19 crisis and
are aware 0f the Office 0f Court Administration Guidance that all in—person proceedings should
be delayed until at least June 1“. Additionally, Plaintiffs are understanding 0f the fact that trial
’
Plaintiffs Motionfor Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 3
settings in many other cases on the Court’s docket have now been delayed as a result of COVID
19. Accordingly, the Lovern family and their counsel respectfully request a trial setting at the
Court’s earliest convenience and availability given the aforementioned obvious challenges, and in
any event, Plaintiffs cettainly request that this case be set for trial well in advance of this year-end
2020.
Plaintiffs would further request that this case be preferentially set, if at all possible, given
the fact that Plaintiffs have 5 retained experts, 3 0f which are out of town or out of state, and there
are several other out of town witnesses who Plaintiffs anticipate will need to make arrangements
to attend trial. Plaintiffs believe itwould facilitate and streamline the presentation of evidence and
the trial of this matter if there was a known preferential setting around which the parties could
coordinate witness appearances.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiffs respectfully request an expedited
preferential trial setting at the Court’s earliest convenience and availability.
Respectfully submitted,
&%
STEPHENS LAW FIRM, PLLC
JASON B. STEPHENS
Texas Bar No. 24003001
Jason@StephensLaw.com
1300 S. University Drive, Suite 406
Fort Worth, Texas 76 1 07
8 1 7.420.7000 — Telephone
8 1 7.420.7777 — Facsimile
LEAD COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
’
Plaintifi‘s Motion for Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 4
- AND-
KIRK L. PITTARD
Texas Bar No. 240 1 03 13
kpittard@dpslawgroup.com
DANA LEVY
Texas Bar No. 2403 1 869
dlevv@dpslawgr0up.com
DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP
2223 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75208
214.946.8000 — Telephone
214.946.8433 — Facsimile
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was electronically
filed and E-served pursuant t0 the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure on this 27TH day of April 2020.
Douglas D. Fletcher, doug.fletcher@fletcherfarlev.com
Keith A. Robb, keith.robb@fletcherfarlev.com
FLETCHER, FARLEY, SHIPMAN & SALINAS, L.L.P.
9201 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75231
J.J. Knauff, jknauff@mklawpc.com
MILLER KNAUFF LAW FIRM
1221 Merit Drive, Suite 12 1 0
Dallas, TX 75251
Kirk L. Pittard, kpittard@dpslawgroup.com
Dana Levy, dlevy@dpslawgroup.com
DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP
2223 W.
@fit
Jefferson Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75208
Jason B. Stephens
’
Plaintifi‘s Motion for Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 5
Preview
FILED 4/27/2020 11:41AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO.,TEXAS DEPUTY Terri Kilgore CAUSE NO. DC- 1 8-05402 EARMON LOVERN, IN THE DISTRICT COURT PEGGY LOVERN, STORMY LOVERN Plaintifls, VS. Cmomomcmomomcmomomcmomom DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS EAGLERIDGE OPERATING, LLC, and USG PROPERTIES BARNETT II, LLC, Defendants 192ml JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, Plaintiffs in the above-styled and numbered cause, and file this Motion for Expedited Preferential Trial Setting, and in support 0f same hereby state as follows: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND As the Court will likely recall, this is a traumatic brain injury case arising from a gas pipeline explosion that occurred 0n or about August 24, 2017. The well and all pumping equipment and trade fixtures on site were owned by Defendant USG. Defendant USG, however, hired Defendant Eagleridge Operating to serve as the Operator in charge of the well Who was responsible for the safety 0f the well and its equipment. Plaintiff Earmon Lovern was a pumper. As a pumper, Earmon helped monitor this well and others by reading the meters, recording tank levels, and logging this information into a computer system for Eagleridge, and occasionally ’ Plaintiffs Motionfor Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page I restarting a compressor by pressing a reset button if it had shut off. On the day in question, a pressurized pipeline attached t0 the compressor blew up in Earmon’s face when itwas restarted. This pipeline was heavily corroded, deteriorated, was literally paper thin, and constituted a deadly dangerous time bomb. Earmon suffered catastrophic injuries in the explosion including first degree chemical and thermal burns t0 his head, face, neck, abdomen, and the inside 0f his nose and mouth. He suffered from an acute pulmonary injury due t0 the inhalation 0f chemicals from the explosion that continues t0 plague him t0 this day. He further suffered a blunt trauma injury t0 his left eye requiring several surgeries and Which continues to have impairment. And, most significantly, Earmon received and continues to suffer from a traumatic brain injury that has literally changed the man, father and husband that he once was. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY As the Court knows, this case has certainly been fully litigated for two years now and was 0n the verge of its third trial setting when Defendant Eagleridge filed a writ 0f mandamus with the Dallas Court 0f Appeals challenging the soundness of this Court’s order striking as a responsible third party Aruba Petroleum—the prior operator and partial owner 0f the well. By way of reminder, Plaintiffs provide the following brief relevant procedural history: o April 24, 2018 — Plaintiffs’ filed their Original Petition in this Court. o January 2, 2019 — The parties entered into an Agreed Scheduling Order setting this case for jury trial t0 begin September 16, 2019. o September 3, 2019 — After the parties had completed all discovery, after all discovery and expert deadlines had concluded, and after the parties had engaged in multiple lengthy motions and hearings on a variety of legal issues, and as the parties were approaching pre- trial deadlines, the Court was forced t0 briefly reset this case for jury trial t0 begin October 14, 2019 due to a scheduling conflict with the Court. ’ Plaintiffs Motionfor Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 2 o September 5, 2019 — The Court issued its Order Striking Aruba Petroleum as a Responsible Third Party. 0 September 12, 2019 — The Court again briefly reset the jury trial setting t0 begin November 4, 2019 due to a vacation letter on file by Counsel for Defendant Eagleridge. o September 24, 2019 — Defendant Eagleridge filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Motion for Temporary Relief, and Emergency Stay seeking mandamus relief from the Order issued by the Trial Court on September 5, 2019 Striking Aruba Petroleum as a Responsible Third Party. o October 28, 2019 — The Dallas Court of Appeals granted Defendant Eagleridge’s Motion and stayed the underlying proceedings pending its resolution of the petition for writ 0f mandamus. o January 24, 2020 — The Court 0f Appeals DENIED Defendant Eagleridge’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. o February 7, 2020 — Defendant Eagleridge filed a Motion For Rehearing/Reconsideration With the Court 0f Appeals. o Februarv 26, 2020 — The Court oprpeals DENIED Eagleridge’s Motion For Rehearing. 0 March 12, 2020 — Defendant Eagleridge filed yet another Motion for Rehearing Reconsideration, this time seeking En Banc review. o April 22, 2020 — The Court of Appeals DENIED Eagleridge’s Motion for Reconsideration En Bane. Defendant Eagleridge has now exhausted itsremedies with the Dallas Court 0f Appeals and this matter is primed to be promptly reset for trial so that the Lovern family may move forward with having their day in Court. III. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED PREFERENTIAL TRIAL SETTING IN 2020 Plaintiffs and their counsel are certainly very sensitive t0 the current COVID 19 crisis and are aware 0f the Office 0f Court Administration Guidance that all in—person proceedings should be delayed until at least June 1“. Additionally, Plaintiffs are understanding 0f the fact that trial ’ Plaintiffs Motionfor Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 3 settings in many other cases on the Court’s docket have now been delayed as a result of COVID 19. Accordingly, the Lovern family and their counsel respectfully request a trial setting at the Court’s earliest convenience and availability given the aforementioned obvious challenges, and in any event, Plaintiffs cettainly request that this case be set for trial well in advance of this year-end 2020. Plaintiffs would further request that this case be preferentially set, if at all possible, given the fact that Plaintiffs have 5 retained experts, 3 0f which are out of town or out of state, and there are several other out of town witnesses who Plaintiffs anticipate will need to make arrangements to attend trial. Plaintiffs believe itwould facilitate and streamline the presentation of evidence and the trial of this matter if there was a known preferential setting around which the parties could coordinate witness appearances. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiffs respectfully request an expedited preferential trial setting at the Court’s earliest convenience and availability. Respectfully submitted, &% STEPHENS LAW FIRM, PLLC JASON B. STEPHENS Texas Bar No. 24003001 Jason@StephensLaw.com 1300 S. University Drive, Suite 406 Fort Worth, Texas 76 1 07 8 1 7.420.7000 — Telephone 8 1 7.420.7777 — Facsimile LEAD COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS ’ Plaintifi‘s Motion for Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 4 - AND- KIRK L. PITTARD Texas Bar No. 240 1 03 13 kpittard@dpslawgroup.com DANA LEVY Texas Bar No. 2403 1 869 dlevv@dpslawgr0up.com DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP 2223 W. Jefferson Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 214.946.8000 — Telephone 214.946.8433 — Facsimile ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was electronically filed and E-served pursuant t0 the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure on this 27TH day of April 2020. Douglas D. Fletcher, doug.fletcher@fletcherfarlev.com Keith A. Robb, keith.robb@fletcherfarlev.com FLETCHER, FARLEY, SHIPMAN & SALINAS, L.L.P. 9201 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75231 J.J. Knauff, jknauff@mklawpc.com MILLER KNAUFF LAW FIRM 1221 Merit Drive, Suite 12 1 0 Dallas, TX 75251 Kirk L. Pittard, kpittard@dpslawgroup.com Dana Levy, dlevy@dpslawgroup.com DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP 2223 W. @fit Jefferson Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 Jason B. Stephens ’ Plaintifi‘s Motion for Expedited Preferential Trial Setting Page 5