arrow left
arrow right
  • SIRIUS SOLUTIONS L L L P vs. TRIMONT ENERGY LLC Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract document preview
  • SIRIUS SOLUTIONS L L L P vs. TRIMONT ENERGY LLC Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract document preview
  • SIRIUS SOLUTIONS L L L P vs. TRIMONT ENERGY LLC Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract document preview
  • SIRIUS SOLUTIONS L L L P vs. TRIMONT ENERGY LLC Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract document preview
  • SIRIUS SOLUTIONS L L L P vs. TRIMONT ENERGY LLC Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract document preview
  • SIRIUS SOLUTIONS L L L P vs. TRIMONT ENERGY LLC Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract document preview
						
                                

Preview

CAUSE NO. 2019 87096 SIRIUS SOLUTIONS, LLLP IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, 295TH J UDICIAL DISTRICT TRIMONT ENERGY, LLC Defendant. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS TRIMONT ENERGY LLC’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION COMES NOW, Defendant Trimont Energy, LLC (‘Trimont”) and files this Motion for Clarification of the Court June , 2021 Verdict. On the second page of the erdict, the Court found that Defendant Trimont is due a credit for, among other matters, severance tax penalties in the amount of $46,203.18. However, it is undisputed that the severance tax penalties actually totaled 103,2 1.58 See Defendant's Ex. 6, TE0507 It is unclear whether the number in the Verdict is a mathematical error, or that the Cou t only intended to award a portion of the severance tax penalties. Since the Court found that Sirius was responsible for the reporting of severance taxes, the amount of the credit should be 3,2 .58, not just $46,203.28. Although there was some confusion in the initial testimony regarding the timing of the reporting for oil as opposed to gas, the testimony of Steve Hughey, the witness who had actual knowledge of these requirements, was that both oil and gas severance tax penalties were due at the end of the second month after the production month. To the extent necessary, the Court can also take judicial notice of the Louisiana statute, LA Rev. Stat. 47:635 (2017), attached as Ex. A, to confirm that fact. In addition, on page 2 of the erdict, the Court found for Plaintiff on Defendant's claim on the accounting journal error (but has deducted all hours billed for Brand Whitt ”. However, in looking at the chart on page 1, there does not appear to be any deduction for the hours billed by Brandolin Whitt. Pursuantto Plaintiff's xhibit 1 0 (the spreadsheet of Sirius’ employees purported hours), in the approximately 9 months she was assigned to Trimont, Ms. Whitt billed 687 hours on transition services and 1385.5 rs for managed services Pursuant to Defendant's Exhibit Ms. Whitt’s billing rate was $ 0.00 perhour. fthe Court has deducted all hours for Ms. Whitt, that amount would equal $165,800.00.If the Court only deducts the hours for the managed services, that amount would equal $110,8 0.00 If these clarifications are made to effectuate what appears to be the Court's decision, then the judgment should actually be for the Defendant in either the amount of 115,6 .48 or $60,7 48 WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant Trimont respectfully requests that the Court amend its erdict to correct these mathematical errors and to effectuate what appear to be the Court's findings Respectfully submitted, STRAWN PICKENS L.L.P. By: s/|ohn R. Strawn, | r. J ohn R. Strawn, J r., #19374100 Ms. Whitt also billed an additional 82 hours for the Open Invoice implementation, but the Court deducted those hours in a separate paragraph of the Verdict. Andrew L. Pickens, #15971900 Pennzoil Place, South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 1850 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 659 9600 (713) 659 9601 (Fax) jstrawn@ strawnpickens.com apickens@ strawnpickens.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, TRIMONT ENERGY, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John R. Strawn, Jr., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on all counsel of record in accordance with the applicable Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 16th day of J une 2021. /s/\ ohn R. Strawn, | r. J ohn R. Strawn, J r.