Corral v. Concho Resources, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

SAMUEL CORRAL, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 21-0390 KG/SMV CONCHO RESOURCES, INC., and CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Defendants. ORDER OF REFERENCE In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Va. Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849 (10" Cir. 1990), this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary hearings, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of Plaintiff Samuel Corral’s pro se Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 79) and Plaintiff's Counsel’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 82). In evaluating these Motions, the Magistrate Judge will make findings and recommendations with respect to Mr. Corral’s credibility, the existence of an attorney/client relationship between Mr. Corral and Plaintiffs Counsel, and what effect those findings may have on the original complaint and on the now-conditional class which has joined it. The Magistrate Judge will make findings and recommendations, if appropriate, on the ethical implications of Mr. Corral’s Motion. The Magistrate Judge will submit an analysis, including findings of fact, credibility determinations, -and recommended disposition, to the District Judge assigned to the case, with copies provided to the parties. The parties will be given the opportunity to object to the proposed findings, analysis,

and disposition as described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the proposed disposition. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNI ips STATES he RICT JUDGE