Motion-Secondary: LUNA, ALDO vs. GRIZZLY OPERATING LLC (DBA GRIZZLY OPERATING OF DELAWARE LLC FKA A

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IN THE COURT OF THE




                  GRIZZLY OPERATING, LLC D/B/A




                                                                                       HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS


                        DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL
                                             NOTICE OF AND APPLY NEW MEXICO LAW


                  TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

                           COMES        NOW       Defendant,      GRIZZLY         OPERATING,           LLC     D/B/A      GRIZZLY

                  OPERATING OF DELAWARE, LLC F/K/A VANGUARD OPERATING, LLC (“Defendant”)

                  to file  this Response     to Plaintiff’s  Motion    to  Take   Judicial  Notice   of  and  Apply    New    Mexico



                           Defendant     does  not  oppose    the relief  sought   by  Plaintiff  in his  Motion,    to the  extent  it

                  specifically applies only to Plaintiff’s claims tort against Defendant in the above numbered and

                  styled  lawsuit.    Defendant,    however,    specifically   asserts  and  maintains    that  Texas   law,  and  not

                  New    Mexico    law,  applies   to Defendant’s     Master   Services   Agreement     (“MSA”)      with  Plaintiff’s

                  employer, Totem Well Service, LLC, and Defendant’s demand for defense and indemnity from

                  Totem    pursuant   to  that MSA.    Defendant     and  Totem    specifically   agreed   in the  MSA    that  to the

                  maximum      extent   permitted   by  law,  the  MSA    “shall   governed    by  and  interpreted   in  accordance

                  with the substantive law of Texas.” Thus, although Defendant does not oppose the relief sought

                  in Plaintiff’s   Motion,   Defendant     does  not  waive    itscontentions    that  the  substantive   law   of the