|
|
Enron Mail |
Is this case still active? If so,what is the status?
Richard B Sanders 01/06/2000 04:19 PM To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Another CGAS lawsuit ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 01/06/2000 04:19 PM --------------------------- Janet H Moore 12/03/99 10:32 AM To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: csandvick@velaw.com, Jay Boudreaux/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patrick Johnson/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Another CGAS lawsuit Richard: I'll just assume that you will call John Keller on this one. Let me know if you need my help ---------------------- Forwarded by Janet H Moore/HOU/ECT on 12/03/99 10:28 AM --------------------------- "Keller, John K." <JKKeller@vssp.com< on 12/03/99 09:52:04 AM To: Janet H Moore/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: I have just learned of another lawsuit involving CGAS. This had been handled by Jud Scheaf and had been dormant for a long time, which is why neither I nor anyone at the company knew about it. This is somewhat confusing, so let me try to explain. The style is Kilbarger Construction vs Eastland Energy Group, et al. In the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio Case No. CH96-0311. CGAS had a lease in Muskingum County. Eastland Energy had a lease on an adjoining tract. Eastland approached CGAS about going together to drill a well on a unit formed by the two leases. CGAS agreed. Eastland was designated operator. Eastland hired Kilbarger as the drilling contractor. Kilbarger drilled the well and it was dry. Eastland thought Kilbarger negligently drilled the well, so Eastland only paid Kilbarger half the drilling cost. Kilbarger filed a mechanics lien and filed suit against Eastland for the other half of the drilling costs (approximately $30,000) and also joined CGAS because of the mechanics lien. Kilbarger was not seeking any monetary recovery from CGAS, and the lien is meaningless since CGAS has since released its lease. Thus, we have no pending claims from Kilbarger. However, in the same case Eastland and CGAS have a claim pending. During the drilling of the well, some of the contractors would not work for Eastland since they did not know Eastland - a new, small producer. Those contractors therefore did the work on the well for CGAS, billed CGAS, CGAS paid those contractors, and CGAS then invoiced Eastland. Eastland did not pay and therefore CGAS has a claim in this suit against Eastland for $7,139.69. No monetary claim has been made by Eastland against CGAS. I just learned of this case and have taken over this file from Jud Scheaf. There is a settlement conference scheduled for December 9 and this case is set for trial on December 16. I am hopeful this will be resolved before trial. If there are questions, please call.
|