The defendants removed the complaint from state court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico then filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted the defendants’ dismissal motion, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a duty or injury sufficient to support a claim for negligence and failed to plead sufficient facts giving rise to an implied contract. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Court of Appeals explained at the outset of its analysis that it was applying a de novo legal standard. The Court also observed that, because the plaintiffs’ claims arose under state law, the Court was to apply New Mexico law to achieve the result that would be reached in a New Mexico court.

First, the Court of Appeals considered whether the plaintiffs’ negligence claims were properly dismissed. The Court assumed for analytical purposes that the defendants could owe the plaintiffs a duty of care because they contracted with the medical center to staff the emergency room with physicians and controlled the physicians that treated the plaintiffs. However, the Court criticized the plaintiffs’ theory of recovery, asserting the plaintiffs were unable to cite authority suggesting that a doctor’s duty to provide competent medical care requires entities that employ doctors to charge an unspecified reasonable fee.

The Court further reasoned that a broad concept of duty under New Mexico law does not transform all perceived wrongs into negligence claims and that the plaintiffs did not state a claim for negligence based on allegations of having been billed at unreasonable rates, causing the plaintiffs to pay bills that were too high and, in some cases, damaging their financial stability and credit ratings. Based on its review of the record, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence claims. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ contractual claims and claims of unconscionability.

If you or a loved one has been hurt in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. Receiving money damages can help injured people and their families recover out-of-pocket costs including medical bills and lost wages. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

The plaintiffs had sued the City of Espanola and employees after trying – for years – to get water and sewer services to their trailer that had been turned off turned back on. Allegedly the prior owners of the trailer, who had been the plaintiffs’ landlords before the plaintiffs purchased the trailer, had not been forwarding money that the plaintiffs gave them for water and sewer services to the city. The city’s records showed $1,760 owing on the account around December 2016. A few weeks later, in February 2017, the plaintiffs discovered that the services had been discontinued. Upon going to City Hall to investigate further, the plaintiffs were told the city had switched off municipal services due to the $1,760 unpaid account balance.

The plaintiffs tried to remedy the situation by explaining to city employees on multiple occasions that the overdue balance belonged to a deceased person who was a prior owner of the property. In March 2017 they informed city officials in the Water Department that the denial of water services violated their rights. Allegedly it took until March 2020 – over three years – to get services switched back on, and even then the bills for water came in increasing amounts and were addressed to the deceased.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in June 2020 asserting due process violations and equal protection violations under the U.S. Constitution. In addition to these federal law claims, the plaintiffs asserted state law claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act against the city. At the point the plaintiffs sued, more than 3 years had passed since their first assertion that their rights were being violated. The city moved for dismissal of the complaint as untimely.

The court concluded a three year statute of limitations applied to the federal law claims, and a two year statute of limitations applied to the state law claims. The court also determined that the claims accrued in March 2017, when the plaintiffs first asserted to the city that their rights were being violated. As such, the June 2020 complaint was at risk of being dismissed as untimely. The plaintiffs argued in defense of the timeliness of their complaint that, each time they asked for their water services to be switched back on and the city did not switch the water on, the city was committing separate violations of their rights. Their hope was to successfully invoke the continuing violations doctrine. As the court explained, there are cases supporting the proposition that “where a tort involves a continuing or repeated injury, the cause of action accrues at, and limitations begin to run from, the date of the last injury.” The court viewed the last injury as having occurred in March 2017 and treated the defendants’ refusals to switch the water back on as not constituting new injuries but rather continued effects from the initial shut off. Accordingly the court granted the city’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint as untimely.

If you or a loved one has been hurt in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. In some cases multiple parties can be liable for the payment of money damages. Receiving damages can help injured people and their families recover out-of-pocket costs including medical bills and lost wages. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

The children were not in their father’s pick-up truck at the time of the accident and did not sustain bodily injuries in connection with the accident. Their mother brought litigation, on her own behalf, on behalf of the estate of their father, and on behalf of the children. She sought recovery of damages from multiple parties including the company that employed the driver of the vehicle that had struck her husband’s vehicle, and the driver’s insurance company. The litigation she brought led to a settlement.

As part of the settlement, she and her children were to receive $4,530,007.00, comprised of several payments. Under § 41-2-3(B) of New Mexico’s Wrongful Death Act, one half of the net settlement proceeds was to be distributed to her and the remaining half was to be distributed evenly between her two children and invested on their behalf. The guardian ad litem appointed by the court was in favor of the settlement.

In reviewing the settlement, the court considered several factors to guide the exercise of the court’s discretion. The court first considered whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated. The court was satisfied with this aspect of the settlement because the settlement followed an arms-length private mediation. Next the court considered whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt, and whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighed the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation. The court concluded there were questions concerning liability, that made settling and taking the money offered advisable. Finally the court considered whether, in the judgment of the parties, the settlement was fair and reasonable. As all parties were supportive of entering into the settlement, and based on review of the record, the court concluded that settlement was fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the children.

If you or a loved one has been hurt in an accident, you may be entitled by law to receive a monetary award. In some cases multiple parties can be liable for the payment of money damages. Receiving damages can help injured people and their families recover out-of-pocket costs including medical bills and lost wages. The legal process for pursuing a recovery can be complex, and you should not have to navigate the process on your own. We can help. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or send us a message online.

The plaintiffs in the case were migrant workers, who filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Service of process was attempted on the defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs, but it was unsuccessful. The plaintiffs successfully moved the court thereafter to allow for alternative service of process. The summons was returned executed and the complaint was left with the defendant’s father at a residence owned by the defendant.

According to the court’s ruling, the defendant against whom default judgment was sought did not file an answer to the complaint by the due date, appear before the court or file any pleadings with the court. A recovery could not be had from a co-defendant, who the court explained had received a discharge in a bankruptcy case, making it essential for the plaintiffs to recover from the defaulting defendant if the law allowed for a default judgment.

The court opened its discussion of liability with a discussion of Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 55 contemplates a two-step process. First the party seeking entry of a default judgment must obtain a Clerk’s entry of default. Next the party must request from the court a default judgment. The plaintiffs had taken both steps.

The court explained that parties are not entitled to default judgment as of right. Rather, whether to enter default judgment in a case is left to the sound discretion of the court. In this case the court was satisfied with the service of process on the defendant’s father at a residence the defendant owned. According to the court the defendant’s father said he was in touch with his son. The court was also satisfied that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the complaint concerned happenings on his farm in New Mexico. The court observed that a decision on the merits is strongly preferred, but at the same time, the court was sympathetic to the plaintiffs because the defendant had been non-responsive and plaintiffs experienced a delay as a consequence. Accordingly the court entered statutory damages in favor of the plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to post-judgment interest on the statutory damages.

If you or a loved one has been injured by someone else’s actions you may be entitled by law to receive a monetary award. Collecting can help offset costs resulting from an injury including medical bills and lost wages. The legal process for pursing a recovery can be complex and you should not have to undertake the burden of navigating this legal process on your own. At the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., we zealously represent our clients. To contact the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C., please call (505) 242-6267 or contact attorney Matthew Vance online.

Following the trial, a jury found in favor of the defendants, a group which included the school district, the principal and athletic director, and the two coaches who were onsite on the day of the accident. On appeal the plaintiffs asserted that the district court had erred in refusing to admit into evidence certain exhibits including excerpts from the school district’s policies and personnel manual and an excerpt from the school district’s athletic handbook.

The Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the exclusion of evidence. The court explained that an abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the facts and circumstances of a case. The court explained further that the party challenging on appeal the exclusion of evidence must show that the erroneous exclusion was prejudicial. The appellate court then reviewed what had occurred at the trial court level with respect to the exhibits at issue.
The appellate court explained that as early as the first day of testimony, the trial judge had expressed reservations about admitting the exhibits. On the third day of trial, the trial judge ruled that the exhibits would not be admitted into evidence but could be used for demonstrative purposes and displayed to the jury in the court’s ELMO system. In a footnote, the appellate court explained that an ELMO is an electronic monitoring program that projects an exhibit onto a larger screen so that the jury and spectators can all view it at the same time, and that an ELMO also allows witnesses to point out relevant portions of the exhibits while they are testifying.

Although the appellate court was applying an abuse of discretion standard, which is deferential, the court concluded that the trial court had erred by excluding the exhibits from evidence. The court explained that it was left with the conclusion that there was no basis under the rules of evidence or the more general concerns revolving around effective trial management supporting the decision to exclude the exhibits. The court observed that, reportedly, during deliberations, the jury asked to see some of the excluded exhibits. The court took this as an indication that the display of exhibits on the ELMO and the asking of questions about them was not sufficient for the jury’s purposes. The court rejected the balance of the defendants’ arguments as well, including that the exclusion of exhibits from evidence amounted to a harmless error, and reversed dismissal of the plaintiffs’ personal injury case.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. An award of damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your recoveries, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

Allegedly, at the time of the accident that led to the trial, the plaintiffs were in a vehicle that was rear-ended by another vehicle and this caused them to suffer personal injuries and property damage. The driver of the car that collided with the plaintiffs’ car was insured. Her insurance company determined that she was at fault and paid plaintiffs for property damage. The insurer refused to pay for personal injuries that the plaintiffs documented with materials, including medical records and bills. The insurer then offered to settle for an amount that the plaintiffs rejected on the basis that it was less than the amount they believed they were owed. After the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the driver of the car and her insurer, the parties engaged in a mediation. The plaintiffs purportedly offered to settle their claims for $40,000 and the insurance company was willing to pay $16,000. No settlement was achieved and the case went to trial. Following the trial the jury found the driver that rear-ended the plaintiffs to be 100% at fault for the car accident and awarded the plaintiffs $100,000.

The plaintiffs then sued the insurance company for refusing to settle their personal injury claims sooner, alleging that this was in keeping with a policy and practice of the insurance company to refuse to settle or offer only unreasonably low settlements to people seeking recoveries for injuries arising from low speed accidents. The plaintiffs based their claims on the UCPA. The insurance company moved to dismiss the punitive damages claim asserted in the plaintiffs’ complaint on the basis that the UCPA allows for recovery of actual damages, but not punitive damages. The plaintiffs asserted that the UCPA did not expressly preclude the award of punitive damages, and pointed to statutory language suggesting recoveries under the UCPA for punitive damages are available in addition to state common law and statutory recoveries.

The Court reviewed the policies underlying the enactment of the UCPA, which include allowing private parties to recover against insurance companies for unfair practices. The Court looked to an earlier New Mexico Supreme Court case that had discussed but not resolved the issue of the scope of damages available under the UCPA, and declined to read punitive damages into the UCPA.

If you or a loved one has suffered personal injury or experienced property damage following a car accident, there may be grounds for recovery. Insurance companies are among parties that may be liable in some situations. They are sophisticated litigants, and often try to cause litigation to be protracted to gain advantage over their insureds and others. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to try to maximize your recoveries, call New Mexico insurance bad faith lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

New Mexico Federal Court Bifurcates Contract-based Claims from Bad Faith Claims Against Insurance Company

Partial Summary Judgment Granted in New Mexico Personal Injury Case

Insurance Company Lawyers Can Be Held Liable for Violations of the New Mexico Insurance Code

The plaintiff in this case was a civilian who was injured at a U.S. Air Force Base. According to the court’s ruling, she had gone there with a group of her coworkers to participate in team building exercises. One of these exercises involved rappelling down a tower. The plaintiff and her coworkers were each handed a waiver of liability form, with the Sergeant handing them out explaining that the waivers were documents “relieving the Air Force from responsibility for injuries and that the participants had to understand they were taking a risk by rappelling.”

The plaintiff did not recall a discussion of specific risks, including, for example, falling or the safety line not working. She signed the waiver, took some training after explaining she had no experience, and ascended to the top of the rappelling tower. She fell and was thereafter moved and assessed. One of her coworkers then took her to the hospital in an ambulance.

After the accident, the plaintiff sued the United States of America, operator of the Air Force Base, under the Federal Tort Claims Act. She alleged negligence based on the cause of her fall and the manner in which she was treated following the fall, which included allegations she was moved and emergency personnel were not contacted after she fell. The United States, as part of its defense against the lawsuit, moved to dismiss, contending that the waiver that the plaintiff signed before rappelling barred her claims and precluded the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff responded that the waiver was unenforceable as a matter of New Mexico law.

In its analysis, the court reproduced the language of the waiver at issue in its entirety, except for the signature lines. After discussing precedents, the court concluded that “owing to the breadth of the waiver combined with the non-obviousness of the risks, the waiver did not clearly and unambiguously inform Plaintiff of the risks being assumed” and that the waiver was, therefore, “invalid and unenforceable as a bar to Plaintiff’s negligence claims.” The court then rejected the argument that it should hold the waiver to be unenforceable on public policy grounds. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the waiver precluded the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

The court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the personal injury case to continue to proceed.

If you or a loved one was injured in an accident, there may be grounds for an award of damages. In some cases, punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

New Mexico Court Rules Law Capping Damages Recoverable for Medical Malpractice is Unconstitutional

Plaintiffs to Proceed with Personal Injury Lawsuit in Federal Court Following Ruling by U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

New Mexico Property Owners Have Duty to Those Invited Onto Property, Including for Open and Obvious Dangers