Alvarez v. Emergency Site Protection, LLC et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2018-cv-01298

Exhibit 1

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Exhibit 1 From: Cliff Gordon <cgordon@a2xlaw.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 3:57 PM To: Patterson, Brian Cc: Friedman, Scott; Clif Alexander Subject: Re: Alvarez et al v. ESP et al I put what Plaintiffs' response will be in writing so that you can rely on it. I'm not in the habit of going back on even my spoken word. Why can't you adopt Gryphon's briefing or the positions that it has taken? You think the Judge will issue different rulings for Sanchez and Gryphon if you don't have your own brief? "With respect to both Gryphon and Sanchez, Plaintiffs dispute only having to arbitrate without the Court first striking and severing the unconscionable provisions that prevent Plaintiffs from effectively vindicating their statutory rights in arbitration. Those issues have already been briefed by Gryphon, and Sanchez will not needlessly repeat that briefing here." There, I just wrote your motion to compel arbitration for you. It's not agreed or unopposed. Plaintiffs are not going to join in any agreed or unopposed motion to compel arbitration, subject to whatever, while there are still live issues concerning arbitration. But I don't see how that forces Sanchez to re-brief anything. Cliff Gordon Anderson Alexander, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 361.452.1279 (O) 361.452.1284 (F) E-MAIL NOTICE - The information contained in this email is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Its contents (which include any attachments) may contain confidential or privileged information or both. If you are not an intended recipient, you are prohibited from using, disclosing, disseminating, copying or printing its contents. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and purge all copies from your system. On Jun 24, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Patterson, Brian <bpatterson@akingump.com> wrote: Cliff, What if we filed an "Unopposed Motion to Arbitrate Subject to the Court's Ruling on Defendant Gryphon's Motion to Compel Arbitration". That would seem to fairly represent the position of the parties, avoid putting an "Agreed Motion to Arbitrate" before the Court, and prevent us from having to brief the issue. 1