Ma-Stell, Inc. v. Anadarko E&P Company, LP and Ogden Resources Corporation

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 


No. 10-03-00358-CV

Ma-Stell, Inc.,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

 

ANADARKO E&p COMPANY, LP AND

OGDEN RESOURCES CORPORATION,

Appellees

 

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 54031-CV

 

*************************************************

 

No. 10-05-00204-CV

 

Lloyd Muennink,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

 

Anadarko E&P Company, LP and

Ogden Resources Corporation,

                                                                      Appellees

 

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 54031-CV

 

 

 

DISSENTING Opinion to Severance and

reinstatement order in 10-03-00358-cv

and

dissenting opinion to abatement order in

10-05-00204-CV


 

          Anadarko and Ogden have not requested a severance.  The status report filed by them indicates the bankruptcy stay will be in effect until May 2009.  They do not seem to want to move forward (seek to lift the stay), so I would leave this case alone.

          From the status report it appears the parties, through the bankruptcy proceedings, have determined a manner and means of dealing with this case.  It further appears that the parties are content with that status, and they do not request that it be altered.  The appellants, who are the party and its attorney, are jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.  By ordering a severance of this appeal on our own motion, we have attempted to divide a single claim, for which two parties are liable, after one of those parties has apparently made some financial arrangement to pay through the bankruptcy proceedings, over which we have no control.

          This is a situation from which the parties know how to extricate themselves if they so choose.  They have not.  I would “let it be,” unless and until one of the parties filed a motion requesting that we review the status and alter the status quo during the automatic suspension of this appeal due to the bankruptcy filing.  See Tex. R. App. P. 8.3.  Other than to meddle in a case, possibly creating unnecessary problems, and certainly causing unnecessary expense, I see absolutely no justification for the Court’s action.


          Accordingly, I dissent from the Court’s severance and reinstatement order.  The entire proceeding, as a single proceeding, should remain suspended.  Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

 

 

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

 

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed April 27, 2005