Matthews SMITH; John Comeaux; John Lumpkins; Kenneth Ford; and Darlene Greene; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
TEXACO, INC.; et al., Defendants,
Aramco Services Company; Saudi Refining, Inc.; Shell Oil Company; Star Enterprise; Texaco, Inc.; Texaco Refining and Marketing Incorporated; and Texaco Refining and Marketing East, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 1, 2002.
February 1, 2002.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
James Erick Payne, Christopher T. Kirchmer, John A. Cowan, Gregory M. Thompson (argued), Provost & Umphrey, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Namcy J. Brown, Nicole Perdue, Neil G. Martin, Gardere Wynne Sewell, Houston, TX, for Aramco Services Co.
Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfield & Toll, Washington, DC, for NAACP, United Food and Commercial Workers, Intern. Union, Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers Intern. Union and Nat. Employment Lawyers Ass'n, Amicus Curiae.
Paula Ann Brantner, Nat. Employment Lawyers Ass'n, San Francisco, CA, for National Employment Lawyers Ass'n, Amicus Curiae.
Barbara L. Sloan (argued), Washington, DC, for EEOC, Amicus Curiae.
Dewey J. Gonsoulin, Elizabeth Brandes Pratt, David B. Gaultney, Mehaffy & Weber, Beaumont, TX, for Saudi Refining, Inc.
John Michael Dorman, William John Bux, Locke Liddell & Sapp, L. Chris Butler, Shell Co., Houston, TX, for Shell Oil Co.
V. Scott Kneese (argued), Amy K. Halevy, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, TX, Robert J. Hambright, Orgain, Bell & Tucker, Beaumont, TX, for Star Enterprise.
Stephen F. Fink, Bryan Patrick Neal, Thompson & Knight, Dallas, TX, Joseph P. Moan, Texaco Inc., White Plains, NY, Paul W. Gertz, Germer, Bernsen & Gertz, Beaumont, TX, Michael G. McQueeney, Texaco Inc., Houston, TX, for Texaco, Inc.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
PER CURIAM:
The defendants filed, on January 3, 2002, an unopposed motion "to dismiss all proceedings before this Honorable Court," and specifically to dismiss the petition for rehearing en banc. The motion presumably is filed pursuant to FED. R.APP. P. 42 and 5TH CIR. R. 42. The motion states, in its text and as reflected in an attached judgment of the district court entered on November 19, 2001, that the parties have settled all claims and controversies and that...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
