Corral v. Concho Resources, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO STEPHEN MARX, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Civ. No. 21-0390 KG/DLM CONCHO RESOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY TO RUSCO’S REPLY THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to RUSCO’s Reply (Doc. 69), filed September 30, 2022.! Plaintiff claims new materials were raised for the first time in RUSCO’s Reply. (Doc. 69). The Motion for Leave was opposed by Defendant RUSCO; however, no response was filed. A surreply may be appropriate when new matters are raised, for the first time, in a reply brief. See Smith v. State Farm Ins. Cos., No. 088CV105 MCA/LCS, 2008 WL 11322946, at *7 (D.N.M. Sept. 24, 2008). According to the Tenth Circuit, a “nonmoving party should be given an opportunity to respond to new material raised for the first time in the movant’s reply.” Locke v. Grady County, 437 Fed. Appx. 626, 633 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1197 (10th Cir. 2005)). New materials include new evidence and new legal arguments. Jd.

' At the time of filing, the named plaintiff was Samuel Corral. (Doc. 69). Samuel Corral is no 96 _ in this lawsuit, so the named Plaintiff has been updated to Stephen Marx.

Plaintiff has adequately identified new materials raised for the first time in RUSCO’s Reply. (Doc. 69). These new materials include new legal arguments in RUSCO’s Reply (Doc. 65) and new evidence offered via Concho’s Notice of Non-Opposition (Doc. 64). Having reviewed the arguments presented, the Court will consider Plaintiff's Surreply (Doc. 75) in ruling on RUSCO’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 60). The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave (Doc. 69). IT IS SO ORDERED.

a mS a RICT JUDGE