Moreno v. Ranger Energy Servs.

── Moreno v. Ranger Energy Servs. ── Court: New Mexico Supreme Court Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23- 112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: May 14, 2026 4 NO. S-1-SC-40442 5 JESUS MORENO, 6 Plaintiff-Petitioner, 7 v. 8 RANGER ENERGY SERVICES, LLC 9 and WILDCAT OIL TOOLS, LLC, 10 Defendants-Respondents. 11 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI 12 Kathleen McGarry Ellenwood, District Judge 13 Durham, Pittard & Spalding LLP 14 Caren I. Friedman 15 Justin R. Kaufman 16 Rosalind B. Bienvenu 17 Santa Fe, NM 18 Arnold & Itkin LLP 19 Andrew R. Gould 20 Brian M. Christensen 21 Trenton R. Shelton 22 Noah M. Wexler 23 Houston, TX 24 for Petitioner 1 Stephanie K. Demers 2 Albuquerque, NM 3 for Respondent Ranger Energy Services, LLC 4 Priest & Miller, LLP 5 Ada B. Priest 6 Brian L. Shoemaker 7 Albuquerque, NM 8 for Respondent Wildcat Oil Tools, LLC  1 OPINION 2 VARGAS, Chief Justice. 3 {1} The question presented by this case is whether a plaintiff’s second lawsuit, 4 filed in New Mexico, may benefit from the New Mexico savings statute, NMSA 5 1978, § 37-1-14 (1880), when the plaintiff’s first lawsuit was filed in another state 6 and dismissed under that state’s statute of limitations. 7 {2} Plaintiff Jesus Moreno first filed a lawsuit in Texas state court, which was 8 dismissed under Texas’s two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit 9 in New Mexico state court, after the expiration of the New Mexico three-year statute 10 of limitations, seeking to benefit from the New Mexico savings statute’s six-month 11 grace period to refile a previously dismissed action as a continuation of the first. The 12 district court dismissed the New Mexico lawsuit and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 13 holding that Plaintiff’s second lawsuit cannot benefit from the New Mexico savings 14 statute because the factual circumstances of his dismissal fell within the statute’s 15 negligence in prosecution exception. Moreno v. Ranger Energy Servs., LLC, 2024- 16 NMCA-065, ¶ 16, cert. granted (S-1-SC-40442, Aug. 29, 2024); Section 37-1-14 17 (stating that, if a plaintiff’s lawsuit fails “for any cause, except negligence in its 18 prosecution,” a new suit may “be commenced within six months”).  1 {3} Plaintiff now argues, relying on Zangara v. LSF9 Master Participation Tr., 2 2024-NMSC-021, 557 P.3d 111, that the Court of Appeals erred and the dismissal 3 of his first lawsuit does not fall under the New Mexico savings statute’s negligence 4 in prosecution exception. Instead, he claims that his second lawsuit should benefit 5 from the New Mexico savings statute and be deemed a continuation of his first 6 lawsuit. 7 {4} We agree with Plaintiff that the dismissal of his first lawsuit does not implicate 8 the negligence in prosecution exception to the New Mexico savings statute as we 9 defined it in Zangara. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s claim cannot proceed because he did 10 not timely commence his first action. See § 37-1-14; Zangara, 2024-NMSC-021, ¶ 11 1 (“The savings statute suspends the running of an otherwise applicable statute of 12 limitations when an action is timely commenced but later dismissed for any cause 13 except negligence in prosecution.” (emphasis added)). Because Plaintiff’s first 14 action was not timely commenced, his second action cannot benefit from the New 15 Mexico savings statute as a continuation of the first. We affirm. 16 I. BACKGROU