Document jyeejoDx9dYJNj7Lp9mKYykq9

_.<VICE OF PROCESS TRANSMITS ORM The Corporation Trust Company Tn. Conoco Inc. ' AT1N: B. D. Kelly, supv. Support services McLean Building, Rn. 2030 600 North Dairy Ashford Houston, Texas 77079 R C / \j p ^ Iltai JAN 2 3 793(J JPPdv/ i. . ASH8V HOUSTON, TEXAS_________ (Cily) (Sr | Jan. 22, 1990 ` (O.t.l ( X ) via Federal Express # 381 0829 504 { ] Via Messenger RE: PROCESS SERVED I N__________________________TEXAS _ (Juriidictian I FOR Conoco Inc. (Name of Company) DEL. ((Domestic State) Enclosed are copies of legal process served upon or received by the statutory agent of the above company as follows: Edwin L. Chargeis and wife, Maxine Chargois, Pltfs. vs Shell Oil l. Ti-He of Action: Ccnpany, et al, Defts. TO: Conoco, Inc. 1st Amended 2. Documents): (^} Original Petition Citation ( ) Summons ( ) Complaint 'X' Motion for Appointment of Process Server & Order (Executed) 3. Court: (x) 60 Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas. Case No. B-134,053 {) 4. Nature of Action: First Attended Petition adding Defts., in suit seeking unspecified amount and other relief for personal injuries and damages sustained as a result of exposure to products containing benzene nenufactured, sold or distributed by Defts., alleging negligence. 5. | ) Process Served on: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, HOUSTON, TEXAS *X) Process Received by: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, HOUSTON, TEXAS Via J(X) Certified Mail < ) Regular Mail From: See Item #8 Envelope Post Markedl~19-90 ___ enclosed. 6. Date end Hour of Service or Receipt: Jan. 22, 1990 7. Appearance or Answer Due: (X) 10 A.M. Monday next after expiration of ^ days. 8. Plaintiff's Attorney(s): j. Keith Hyde 2190 Harrison Beatmont, Texas 77701 (409) 838-6410 9. Remarks: Pltfs. hereby request a trial by jury. { ) This confirms our telephone call to your office. ( ) Above telephoned to C T office and is sent to you per their instructions. KINDLY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT BY SIGNING THE CARBONCOPY AND RETURNING ITT0 -- MCD 000018261 Signed C T CORPORATION SYSTEM Houston, Texas 77002 NO. B--134,053 EDWIN L. CHARGOIS AND WIFE MAXINE CHARGOIS VS SHELL OIL COMPANY, ET AL * * * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 60TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS9 FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW the Plaintiffs, EDWIN CHARGOIS and wife, MAXINE CHARGOIS, complaining of B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, TEXACO BUTADIENE COMPANY, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., (formerly GULF OIL CORPORATION), MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, UNIROYAL, INC., SHELL OIL COMPANY, REXENE PRODUCTS COMPANY (formerly EL PASO PRODUCTS COMPANY), PETRO- TEX CHEMICAL CORPORATION, MONSANTO COMPANY, HOLLYWOOD MARINE, INC., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, FINA OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANY (formerly COSDEN OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY), HOECHEST-CELANESE, ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ARCO CHEMICAL COMPANY, NECHES BUTANE PRODUCTS COMPANY, TEXACO INC., TEXACO CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., LYONDELL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION, AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING COMPANY, AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY, AMOCO OIL COMPANY, ASHLAND OIL INC., BASF CORPORATION (d/b/a DELAWARE MEW CORPORATION), BORG WARNER CORPORATION, CHASE *CD MANHATTAN CORPORATION, CONOCO, INC., CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ENERGY RESOURCES, ENJAY CHEMICAL COMPANY, ICI AMERICAS INC., INTER-CONTINENTAL, INTERMARK, INC., KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL COPRORATION, MOBAY CORPORATION (formerly MOBAY CHEMICAL COMPANY), MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., NEOCHEM CORPORATION, NORCHEM, OLYMPIC PETROLEUM, OXY PETROCHEMICALS INC., OXY U. S. A., INC., OXYDE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, POLYSAR, INC., SUN CHEMICAL CORPORATION, TEXAS OLEFINS COMPANY, THOMPSON-HAYWARD CHEMICAL COMPANY, UNION TEXAS PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and VISTA CHEMICAL, hereinafter called Defendants, and for cause of action. Plaintiffs would respectfully show unto the Court the following: I. That Plaintiffs reside in the City of Port Neches, County of Jefferson, State of Texas. s Defendants, B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, TEXACO BUTADIENE COMPANY, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. (formerly GULF OIL CORPORATION), MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, UNIROYAL, INC., SHELL OIL COMPANY, REXENE PRODUCTS COMPANY (formerly EL PASO PRODUCTS COMPANY), PETRO-TEX CHEMICAL CORPORATION, MONSANTO COMPANY, HOLLYWOOD MARINE, INC., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, FINA OIL & MCD 000018263 CHEMICAL COMPANY (formerly COSDEN OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANY), ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ARCO CHEMICAL COMPANY, NECHES BUTANE PRODUCTS COMPANY, TEXACO INC. , TEXACO CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., and LYONDELL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. are properly before this Honorable Court. Defendants, HOECHEST-CELANESE and QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION, have been served, but have not yet answered in this proceeding. Defendant, AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of some state other than Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: Prentice-Hall Corporation System, 807 Brazos, s Suite 102, Austin, Texas 78701. Defendant, AMOCO OIL COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: Prentice-Hall Corporation Systems, 807 Brazos, Suite 102, Austin, Texas 78701. 000016264 MCD Defendant, ASHLAND OIL INC., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kentucky, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation, 1601 Elm St, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, BASF CORPORATION (d/b/a DELAWARE MEW CORPORATION), is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, BORG WARNER CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, CHASE MANHATTAN CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State * of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation System, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, 'CONOCO, INC. , is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 811 Dallas Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002. oo VIC Defendant, CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with an agent for service in the state of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation System, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, ENERGY RESOURCES, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of s Nevada, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to- wit: David L. Baker, 300 Texas Commerce Bank Building, Amarillo, Texas 79109. Defendant, ENJAY CHEMICAL COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of MCD 000018266 Texas, to-wit: c. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75201. Defendant, ici AMERICAS, INC., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75201. Defendant, INTER-CONTINENTAL, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of some state other than the state of Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: Dan Miller, 2700, 200 Bryan Tower, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, INTERMARK, INC., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to- wit: J. C. Matthews, Jr., 346 South Central Expresssway, Richardson, Texas 75080. Defendant, K0PPERS COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the MCD 000018267 laws of the State of New York, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 811 Dallas Avenue, Suite 1500, Houston, Texas 77002. Defendant, MOBAY CORPORATION (Formerly MOBAY CHEMICAL COMPANY), is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with an agent for service in the state of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the state of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, NEOCHEM CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: Dick H. Houston, Texas 77081. Greg, 4828 Luke Central, y Suite 120, Defendant, NORCHEM, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of some state other than the State of Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. MCD 000018268 Defendant, OLYMPIC PETROLEUM, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of some state other than the State of Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: Robert Wolf, 10300 North Central Exp., Building Z, Loop 120, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, OXY PETROCHEMICALS INC., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 811 Dallas Avenue, Suite 830, Houston, TX 77002. Defendant, OXY U.S.A., INC., is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation, 1601 Elm St., Dallas, TX 75201. Defendant, OXYDE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: John W. Johnson, 11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 210, Houston, Texas 77079. Defendant, PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of. the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: United States Corporation, 807 Brazos, Suite 102, Austin, Texas 78701. MCD 000018269 Defendant, POLYSAR, INC,, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, towit: C. T, Corporation, 1601 Elm St., Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, SUN CHEMICAL CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the state of Texas, to-wit: Prentice-Hall Corporation System, 807 Brazos, Suite 102, Austin, Texas 78701. Defendant, TEXAS OLEFINS COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with an agent for service in the state of Texas, to-wit: John T. Shelton, 8707 Katy Freeway, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77024. Defendant, THOMPSON-HAYWARD CHEMICAL COMPANY, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in s the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant, . UNION TEXAS PETROLEUM CORPORATION, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-wit: C. T. Corporation Systems, 811 Dallas Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002. MCP 000018270 Defendant, VISTA CHEMICAL, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with an agent for service in the State of Texas, to-*wit: C, T. Corporation Systems, 811 Dallas Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002. In addition. Plaintiffs would show that at all material times herein, said Defendants were doing business within the State of Texas as that term is defined in Article 2031(b), Texas Revised Civil Statutes, and are therefore amenable to process because of their substantial business contacts in the State of Texas. II. At all times herein relevant, said Defendants were and are engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, distributing and/or placing into the stream of commerce, chemicals, including benzene, 1,3 butadiene and/or styrene contaminated with benzene. These said chemicals were placed into the stream of commerce by the Defendants, acting through its agents, servants, employees and/or representatives, and were and are placed on the market to be purchased and used by the public, specifically the Defendants' refineries and petrochemical facilities, which supplied these chemicals to Plaintiffs' employer, Ameripol-Synpol. frCD 00^2?1 III. Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, was exposed to the said chemicals during his employment at Ameripol-Synpol from approximately 1971 to the present, which has resulted in his developing the disease, non-hodgkins lymphoma and the disease, lymphocytic leukemia. IV. STRICT LIABILITY Plaintiffs would show that this action is maintained pursuant to what is commonly called products liability law. Defendants are liable under the theory of strict tort liability as set forth in Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts (Second). Defendants were at all material times engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or distributing benzene, 1,3 butadiene and styrene contaminated with benzene. Said chemicals were expected to reach, and in fact, did reach the Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, without substantial change s in their condition. The said chemicals were in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous when sold by Defendants. Said defective^ unreasonably dangerous condition was a producing cause of injuries made the basis of this suit. V. That the products containing benzene manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants were in a defective MCD 000018272 condition unreasonably dangerous to EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, and caused him as a user or consumer physical harm over the years, and as a result of the breathing or ingestion into his body of the benzene, butadiene and/or styrene contaminated with benzene, he sustained severe, permanent and disabling injuries (including the disease, non-hodgkins lymphoma and the disease, lymphocytic leukemia). Plaintiffs further say that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs because as manufacturers, distributors and/or sellers of the products in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, said Defendants owed a strict duty to Plaintiffs not to harm EDWIN L, CHARGOIS through the use of the products sold by said Defendants and placed on the market in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous and not safe for the intended use of such products, because said Defendants: (a) Failed to warn the user or consumer of the benzene products, such as EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, of the known or reasonably foreseeable danger of contracting malignant disease by the use of the products manufactured, distributed or sold by Defendants; (b) Knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that their products were in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous, and that the use of same would cause cancer. (c) Failed to test their products concerning the adverse health effects of benzene, butadiene, and/or styrene contaminated with benzene in the Defendants' products upon the human body; (d) Knew that their products would be used by users or consumers, such as EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, in a manner MCD 000018273 that such products were so used, and the use was reasonably foreseeable; (e) Failed and omitted to provide EDWIN L. CHARGOIS with the knowledge as to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient wearing apparel and proper protective equipment and appliances, if, in truth, there were any way to protect him from Defendants' products; (f) Failed to instruct EDWIN L. CHARGOIS in proper handling of said Defendants' products to protect him from harm; and (g) Breached the warranty of merchantability to the Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, as well as others, when Defendants warranted, either expressly or impliedly to be merchantable, when in truth, they were not. VI. NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs would further show that Defendants are liable for their injuries and damages because of negligence. Defendants through their various agents, employees and/or representatives, were negligent in failing to properly manufacture and transport the said chemicals, including benzene, butadiene and/or styrene contaminated with benzene, and in failing to warn Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, or those so situated, of the adverse health effects of said chemicals. Defendants, DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY and PETRO-TEX CHEMICAL CORPORATION, supplied a catalyst to NECHES BUTANE PRODUCTS COMPANY, which was used in the manufacturing and processing of 1,3 butadiene, and in doing so, breached the duty to warn ttCD 0018274 the Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, of safety health hazards. Such negligence was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages (including the disease, non-hodgkins lymphoma and the disease, lymphocytic leukemia). VII. The Plaintiffs would further show that at all times material hereto, over the period of years in which the Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, had been employed at Ameripol- Synpol the manufacture, sale and distribution of benzene, butadiene and/or styrene contaminated with benzene with which the Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, came in contact, was under the exclusive control of said Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, and that had the Defendants herein not been guilty of negligence as hereinabove set forth, the Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, would not have sustained his injuries and damages, as herein set forth, and therefore, Plaintiffs say that they are entitled to recover y Defendants under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. from the viii. Plaintiffs would further show that at all material times the said Defendants were fully aware of their chemical emissions; that such Defendants released toxic chemicals into the ambient air, knowing that such contaminants would be inhaled and absorbed by persons such as EDWIN L. CHARGOIS. 0000IB275 net) Each such Defendant knew, actually or constructively, or should have known, that its chemicals have the potential for causing cancer and other chronic diseases that could result in death or serious bodily disease. A substantial portion of such emissions was unnecessary and therefore such emissions could have been substantially reduced, thereby reducing the resulting disease, non-hodgkins lymphoma and the disease, lymphocytic leukemia. Plaintiffs would also show that the Defendants herein are jointly and severally liable for the bodily harm of which such emissions are a producing cause or a proximate cause. Plaintiffs would moreover show that the aforesaid disease- causing contaminants contained in such emissions constituted abnormally hazardous substances and ultra-hazardous substances for which the law of Texas imposes strict liability for any resulting harm from exposure thereto. Therefore, under the aforesaid facts. Plaintiffs say s that they are entitled to recovery against Defendants jointly and severally under various legal theories, including nuisance, trespass, pollution tort law. negligence, strict liability and IX. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid occurrence and circumstances and the breach of strict MCD 000018276 liability of the Defendants and each of them, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, was permanently and severely injured; that he sustained very serious and permanent injuries to his body, including the disease, non-hodgkins lymphoma and the disease, lymphocytic leukemia; that he suffers excruciating pain; that it is necessary that Plaintiff be given narcotics to relieve his extreme pain; that the Plaintiff's condition is serious and possibly terminal. X. Plaintiffs would further show that as a result of the said exposures, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, has sustained injuries and damages and the resulting disease, non-hodgkins lymphoma and the disease, lymphocytic leukemia. Plaintiffs have been damaged in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirement of this Court and in such amount as the evidence may show proper at the time of trial, for which Plaintiffs herein sue. Plaintiffs believe XI. it would take punitive damages in a very substantial sum to effectively convey this overdue message to the corporate management of these Defendants who have it within their power either to continue or to curtail their participation in this needless tragedy. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, pray for a judgment against such Defendants for a just and reasonable sum. XII. MAXINE CHARGOIS, wife of Plaintiff, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS, joins in this cause of action as a named Plaintiff and specifically incorporates all of the allegations as herein set forth and asserts her individual cause of action for loss of consortium. Consortium is the mutual right of a husband and wife to that affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, assistance and sexual relations necessary to a successful marriage, for which elements of damage said Plaintiff would show that she is entitled and herein seeks to recover. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of negligence and under the doctrine of products liability, MAXINE CHARGOIS, sustained injuries and damages as above set forth in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court and for which she requests this Honorable Court to award her as her sole and separate property. XIII. s Plaintiffs also assert a claim for prejudgment interest for all elements of damages that such interest is allowed for pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court decision in Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking. 696 S.W. 2d 549 (Tex. 1985) and Article 5069-1.05, Texas Revised Civil Statutes, Ann. Such elements include, but are not limited to, past medical ttCD 00oia2?e expenses, past physical pain and suffering, past mental anguish, past loss of earnings, past physical impairment and disfigurement, and any other proper elements of damages that prejudgment interest may be of properly awarded for. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein as the law directs, and that upon final hearing hereof. Plaintiffs, EDWIN L. CHARGOIS and MAXINE CHARGOIS, recover of and from the Defendants for their damages as alleged in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this Court and in such amount as the evidence may show proper at the time of trial, together with costs of court, interest at the legal rate from date of judgment until paid, and for such other and further relief, special and general, at law and in equity, to which the Plaintiffs may be justly entitled to receive. Respectfully submitted, BUSH, LEWIS & RAMSEY, P.C. 10th Floor, San Jacinto Bldg. 595 Orleans Street Beaumont, TX 77701 (409) 835-3521 DON BUSH TBA# 03495200 LEAD COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 000018279 MCD THE LAW OFFICE OF HERSCHEL 2190 Harrison Beaumont, TX 77701 (409) 838-6410 L. HOBSON LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE BARRON 108 North Seventh Street P. O. Box E Orange, TX 77630 (409) 886-3090 BY: / JCl>Xas*-------GEORGE BARRON TBA# rjytyzcn COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request a trial by jury 8*2.$ 0 OOO'i- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the aforementioned instrument was served by mailing a copy of the same on the 14^ day of December, 1989, to all counsel of record. MCD 000018281 NO. B-134,053 EDWIN L. CHARGOIS AND WIFE, MAXINE CHARGOIS vs. SHELL OIL COMPANY, ET AL * * * * * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 60TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT FOR PROCESS SERVER COME NOW EDWIN CHARGOIS and wife, MAXINE CHARGOIS, Plaintiffs herein and move this Court pursuant to Rules 103, 105, 106(a), 107 and 108 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to appoint DENISE M. TRUNCALE as a designated agent by registered mail to serve process in this action, and that said individual is designated shall have full power and authority to execute such process and make due return as provided by Rule 107, T.R.C.P. For grounds, therefore. Plaintiff would ask this Honorable Court to execute service on the above styled cause because of the work overload of the Sl^eriff's Department, that the peculiarities of products liability litigation which involve numerous defendants and the necessity of an efficient and expeditious manner of process service. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray this Court enter its Order and designate DENISE M. TRUNCALE as agent to execute process by registered mail with return being made in accordance with Rule 107, T.R.C.P. MOD 000018282 Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF HERSCHEL 2190 Harrison Beaumont, TX 77701 (409) 838-6410 L. HOBSON BY: J. KI TBA# MCD 000018283 NO. B-134,053 EDWIN L. CHARGOIS AND WIFE MAXINE CHARGOIS * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF vs. SHELL OIL COMPANY, ET AL JEFFERSON COUNTY. TEXAS * 60TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER /0^ day of CAME ON this the r/?c 7, to be considered Plaintiffs' Motion for the authorization of a resident of Orange County, Texas to be lawfully and duly authorized to execute all process in connection with the above captioned cause, and the Court, having considered the same, is of the opinion it is meritorious and should be granted. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that DENISE M. TRUNCALE, a resident of Orange County, Texas be duly authorized and empowered as an officer of this Court to execute process by registered mail and make due return thereof. It is further ORDERED that a certified copy of this Order shall be attached to any and all such process. SIGNED AND ENTERED I CERTIFY THIS AS A TRUE COPY. Witness ny Herd end Seal of Office JOHN S.tAPPLEfAAM, DISTRICT CLERK JEF&RSOrUCOUOTY, TEXAS MCD 000018284 c. .D TO:Conoco, Inc. by serving agent for service C. T. Corporation Systems 811 Dallas Avenue Houston, Texas NOTICE: SERVE BY RULES 103.105.106(a), 107 and 108 DEFENDANT: You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written answer with the clerk who issued this citation by 10:00 a.a. on the Monday next following the expiration of twenty days after you were Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition served this citation and/ petition, a default judgment may be taxen against you. Said answer may be filed by mailing same to: District Clerk's Office, P. 0. box 3707, Beaumont, TX 77704, or by bringing it to the office. Our street address is 1001 Pearl St. and we are located on the second floor of the new annex. The case is presently pending before the 60th District Court of Jefferson County sitting in Beaumont, Texas, and was filed on the 15th <jay Qf December 1989 . It bears cause number S-134,053 and is styled: Edwin L. Chargois and Maxine Chargois Plaintiff : vs Shell Oil Company, Et A1 Cam* to hand on and axacutod la accompanying copy of NAME RETURN \*CS> O0001 day ol ,19 .at o'clock County, Texas by delivering to tech of the within nemed in poreon a true copy of thie Citation, with tho date of delivery endorsed theeeoa and thi 11 | Month __________________________ at the following timet end plsea* late DATE Year | j TIME 1 Hour Min. | 1 tiPlac*. Course iml Distance I --M. 1 from Court House | 19 ID U 1 '-*A * * * ^ f <3 % fit-- cJ 7-' eo X t ?&1 D000 I ?