|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks for the very helpful email. What do you think of our chances of fending off Broward County's intervention? Seems like a judge would be likely to let them in, with the thought that they can always dismiss them later. I guess I've never seen a motion to intervene denied, but then again, I've never seen this kind of motion to intervene.
Kay -----Original Message----- From: SavageP@gtlaw.com [mailto:SavageP@gtlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:53 AM To: Mann, Kay Cc: BarshK@gtlaw.com; ReetzR@gtlaw.com Subject: RE: Pompano motion to dismiss PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION Kay: Thank you for all the emails, welcome back, and I'm glad you are back. Anything I say here is subject to Kerri's approval / modification. In response to your concerns: 1. Pompano / Broward Intervention. I do not believe resisting intervention by Broward is a waste of time and money. They have more resources and better lawyers than the municipalities and have a greater capability to beat up on us along the way and at the hearing. The only benefit I know of allowing them in is there has been some discussion of raising and litigating the Broward permitting authority question in the DOAH proceeding. If you wanted to do that, however, you could do so in the Deerfield case where Broward is an established party. 2. Pompano / Appeal of Denial of Motions to Dismiss. Taking this appeal could constitute a waste of time and money. I am an appellate lawyer by trade and know that the standard for review of the denial of a motion to dismiss is extremely deferential and nearly impossible to overturn on appeal. The only upside of taking the appeal is that it would delay the Pompano proceeding, which could possibly be beneficial if the Deerfield proceeding progressed to a successful conclusion in the meantime. Our standing arguments in the motions to dismiss are well-researched and well-preserved so the lion's share of the work for the appellate brief is done if you decided to do it. 3. Pompano / Planned Motion to Strike. Our next move in the DOAH proceedings was to work with Martha at DEP on a joint motion to strike certain of the claims in the petitions that were clearly and obviously way off base. For instance, there is an allegation about NEPA requirements which is absolutely irrelevant to DEP air permit issuance. The goal here is to seek to narrow the issues for the hearing and for discovery. This may be something you want to stop in the interest of cost containment. It is a way to get a second bite at dismissing some of the claims and it presents an opportunity for us and DEP to present a unified front on something, finally. I will defer to Kerri on what she advises on the motion to strike. Let me know if I can provide anything further to help in your supervision of our DOAH efforts, Paul C. Savage Greenberg Traurig, P.A. ph. (305) 579-0720 fax (305) 961-5720 savagep@gtlaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Mann, Kay [mailto:Kay.Mann@ENRON.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:50 PM To: savageP@gtlaw.com Subject: Pompano motion to dismiss I'm working my way through emails, and see that we lost on our motion to dismiss. You mentioned in your email to Steve a discussion regarding whether to appeal that decision. Please send me a brief email regarding that discussion. Please make sure you copy on any emails to Steve. Thanks, Kay ********************************************************************** This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________________________ The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.
|