United States District Court, D. New Mexico
SAUL MARTINEZ, JR., on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
matter is before the court on the Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Complaint [Doc. 23] and
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page
Limits [Doc. 28]. For the reasons more fully explained
below, the Court will grant the motion to exceed page limits
in part, and will grant the motion for leave to amend.
Saul Martinez (“Martinez”) is a former employee
of Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation
(“Schlumberger”), an oil field services
company. According to the Complaint [Doc. 1],
Schlumberger employed Martinez as a Field Engineer Trainee
from approximately January of 2014 until October of 2014,
during which time he performed non-exempt manual labor.
Martinez alleges that Schlumberger required him, and others
like him, to work more than 40 hours per week but refused to
pay them overtime wages by improperly classifying them as
“exempt” employees. He asserts claims against
Schlumberger for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act (“NMMWA”), N.M. Stat.
Ann. § 50-4-22 et seq. Martinez seeks to assert a
nationwide collective action for the FLSA claim, and a New
Mexico class action for the NMMWA claim.
seeks leave to file a first amended complaint that would
broaden his collective and class actions. While his original
Complaint was brought on behalf of “Field Engineer
Trainees” in the “Well Services Segment, ”
he wishes to amend his complaint to also include all workers
employed as “Field Engineer Trainees” or
“Field Specialist Trainees” in either the Well
Services Segment or the Wireline Segment. Doc. 23 at 2;
see also Plaintiff's proposed First Amended
Complaint, Doc. 23-1. Schlumberger opposes the motion to
amend on the grounds that “it seeks to expand the
alleged classes to include job positions Plaintiff never has
held in divisions where Plaintiff has never worked.”
Doc. 24 at 1. Schlumberger argues that it would be futile to
permit this expansion because Martinez can neither represent
the expanded class he proposes nor meet the certification
requirements of the FLSA and Rule 23.
filed a reply [Doc. 27] in support of his motion for leave to
amend that is sixteen pages in length, which exceeds the
twelve-page limit imposed by our Local Rules. Attached to
this reply are two complete, unhighlighted depositions
totaling almost 200 pages- well in excess of the 50 page
limit for exhibits imposed by our Local Rules. Martinez did
not request permission to exceed these page limits
before he filed his reply, but rather filed the
reply first and then, one day later, filed his Motion for
Leave to Exceed Page Limit. Doc. 28. Schlumberger opposes the
motion to extend the page limits. Doc. 29.
Motion to Extend Page Limits
filing a reply of sixteen pages, Martinez violated several of
our Local Rules. First, he violated Local Rule 7.5, which
limits reply briefs to twelve pages. Next, in attaching
almost 200 pages of exhibits, Martinez violated Local Rule
10.5, which restricts exhibits to a maximum of 50 pages
(unless all parties agree otherwise) and requires parties to
file “only those pages of an exhibit which are to be
brought to the Court's attention.” In fact, most of
the exhibit pages filed by Martinez are irrelevant to his
reply. Martinez's filing also violated Local Rule 10.6,
which requires parties to clearly mark the portions of the
exhibit they wish to bring to the Court's attention.
Finally, Martinez waited until after filing its non-compliant
reply brief before it sought consent to the page extension
from Schlumberger and then filed his motion for extension of
the page limit.
contends that the four extra pages of briefing in his reply
are necessary to fully address the issues raised in
Schlumberger's response brief. Martinez also requests an
opportunity to refile his reply exhibits so that they comply
with Local Rules 10.5 and 10.6. Schlumberger opposes the
four-page extension on the reply brief on two grounds. First,
it contends that the extension is unreasonable in light of
the fact that Schlumberger's response brief was only
seven pages in length and raises no novel issues. Second,
Schlumberger opposes the request as untimely because Martinez
filed it after he filed his overlong reply brief. Finally,
Schlumberger argues that the page extension should be denied
because the reply brief addresses issues, such as standing,
that are not raised in the response brief.
Court will grant the motion to extend page limits in part.
The Court will accept Martinez's overlong reply brief on
this occasion only. Having given this one chance, the Court
will not overlook any further violations of the Local Rules
by Plaintiff. However, the motion to extend the page limit
for the exhibits is denied, there being no valid reason for
the Court to consider those depositions in their entirety.
The Court will consider only those pages specifically cited
in the reply brief; the remainder of the pages are hereby
Motion for Leave to Amend
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that, after a
responsive pleading has been served, “a party may amend
its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave.” The Rule specifies
that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice
so requires.” The purpose of the Rule is to provide
litigants “the maximum opportunity for each claim to be
decided on its merits rather than on procedural
niceties.” Hardin v. Manitowoc- Forsythe
Corp., 691 F.2d 449, 456 (10th Cir. 1982).
“Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified
upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of
amendment.” Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d
1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993).