- 7 -
issue. Pursuant to this order, on July 22, 1988, the HFU royalty
interest owners filed a motion for judgment for lack of Federal
statutory or common law claims, asserting that neither Federal
statutory law nor common law authorized any of Exxon’s claims
against them. On July 5, 1989, James M. Knowles (Mr. Knowles)
entered his appearance on behalf of the Allen parties in the
Jarvis Christian litigation. In his notice of appearance, Mr.
Knowles informed the District Court that negotiations between
Exxon and the Allen parties were presently underway.
On August 25, 1989, the District Court issued an order
directing Exxon to address certain of the royalty interest
owners’ arguments. In its order, the District Court found that
Exxon had an implied cause of action under Federal common law for
reimbursement; however, it noted that, “If called upon to rule
today, the Court would be inclined to dismiss Exxon’s claim
against the royalty owners. However, the Court is also aware
that Exxon has not fully addressed the above issues.” On August
29, 1989, Mr. Knowles advised decedent that, in light of the
order, settlement discussions should be discontinued until Exxon
filed its reply to the order, except that any proposals by Exxon
for a nominal or nuisance value should be considered. On August
30, 1989, a letter from R.H. Kuhlmann (Mr. Kuhlmann), on behalf
of Exxon, was sent to Mr. Knowles. The letter stated that Exxon
was rejecting a settlement offer by the Allen parties and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011