- 8 -
proposed a counteroffer of $944,280 for Exxon’s claim against the
Allen parties. The counteroffer was not accepted.
On October 10, 1989, Exxon filed its brief addressing the
royalty owners’ arguments. In its brief, Exxon noted that the
majority of claims had settled and indicated Exxon’s willingness
to settle the remaining claims.
On November 7, 1989, the District Court issued an order
finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to
whether Exxon breached any duties owed to the royalty interest
owners. The District Court was also persuaded that Exxon’s
entire cause of action for reimbursement against the royalty
interest owners was not barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel, although the factual findings regarding the
reasonableness of Exxon’s actions made in Exxon I would preclude
relitigation of the reasonableness of the same actions in the
Jarvis Christian litigation.
On November 7, 1989, the District Court also issued an order
granting an oral motion for reverse bifurcation. The District
Court ordered that the trial on the damages issue in the case
would precede trial on the liability issue. By order dated
December 5, 1989, the District Court directed the parties to file
any motions for summary judgment with respect to the issue of
whether Exxon had suffered any damages. Pursuant to this order,
on January 16, 1990, Exxon filed a motion for partial summary
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