Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180306_0000498.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:45:51+00:00

Document:
FindACase | SDF, L.L.C. v. Conocophillips Co.
SDF, L.L.C. v. Conocophillips Co.
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY and HILCORP SAN JUAN, L.P., Defendants.
Statutes of limitations, legally-imposed time limits on when a plaintiff may bring certain claims, “are intended to put defendants on notice of adverse claims and to prevent plaintiffs from sleeping on their rights . . . .” See Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 352 (1983) (citations omitted). But these legally-imposed time limits can create inequitable results, a reality that spurred New Mexico courts to adopt the doctrine of equitable recoupment over twenty years ago. Equitable recoupment reduces the inequity of statutes of limitations by allowing a party to assert a time-barred claim as a defense against another party's factually-related claims.
The plaintiff in this case, SDF LLP, asks the Court to recognize for the first time in New Mexico an “illegal recoupment” claim when a party wrongfully invokes the doctrine of equitable recoupment. As there is no good reason to recognize such a claim, and such a claim would eviscerate New Mexico's equitable recoupment doctrine, the Court declines to recognize the proposed illegal recoupment claim.
Defendants removed the case to this Court, (see Doc. 1 at 1), and now ask the Court to dismiss SDF's illegal recoupment claim, (Doc. 8 at 1).
Through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants may ask a court to dismiss any part of a plaintiff's complaint that fails to state a viable claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering whether to dismiss the challenged portion of a plaintiff's complaint based on a 12(b)(6) motion, the court examines the plausibility of the complaint, accepting all of the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true and construing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citations omitted).
Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, and there is complete diversity between the plaintiff and defendants. Venue is proper in the District of New Mexico because the District embraces the state court where the action was pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 665-66 (1953) (explaining that in removal actions, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) instead of 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the general venue statute).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1332
 § 1441
 v. 
 § 1441
 § 1391