Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Power, Inc., Entergy Power Marketing Corporation, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and Entergy Texas, Inc. v. David Jenkins, George W. Strong, Francis N. Gans and Gary M. Gans, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
01-12-00470-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
7/23/2015 2:36:00 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
One American Center 1st COURT OF APPEALS
600 Congress HOUSTON, TEXAS
Suite 1900 July 23, 2015
Austin, TX 78701 7/23/2015 2:36:00 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
P.O. Box 1149
Austin, TX 78767 Clerk
p: 512.744.9300
f: 512.744.9399
www.dwmrlaw.com
Christopher A. Prine, Clerk
First Court of Appeals
301 Fannin Street, Suite 208
Houston, Texas 77002
RE: No. 01-12-00470; Entergy Corporation et al. v. David Jenkins et al.,
in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Dear Mr. Prine:
Appellants' letter-brief of April 30, 2015, mentioned a recent opinion
of the federal district court in Mississippi finding federal question
jurisdiction in a case involving the same System Agreement and similar
allegations as in this case. This is to advise the Court that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the plaintiff's requests for a
discretionary appeal of that jurisdictional order. The appellate orders are
enclosed.
Sincerely,
/s/ David C. Duggins
David C. Duggins
alm
Enclosure
cc: Joseph D. Jamail – w/enc.
Case: 15-90011 Document: 00513070621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 15-90011
A True Copy
Certified order issued Jun 08, 2015
___________________
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ex rel, Jim Hood, Attorney General for the State of
Mississippi,
Plaintiff - Petitioner
v.
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INCORPORATED; ENTERGY CORPORATION;
ENTERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ENTERGY POWER,
INCORPORATED; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A-Z, those individuals,
corporations or otherwise who acted as officer, director, agent, representative
or employee of any of the other defendants, and have acted within the course
and scope of that official capacity, agency, representation or employment,
Defendants - Respondents
________________________
Motion for Leave to Appeal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453
________________________
Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
1453 is DENIED.
2 of 2
Certified as a true copy and issued
as the mandate on Jul 15, 2015
Attest:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit