A lawsuit was brought on her behalf and on behalf of her husband against the maker of the car the injured woman was driving in the First Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe. The plaintiffs sought an award of punitive damages based on causes of action including strict products liability, negligence, breach of an implied warranty, and loss of consortium. The defendant car maker filed a notice of removal, pursuant to which the case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Initially the defendant sought dismissal based on allegedly improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant then withdrew its argument for dismissal based on improper service, resulting in the question of whether there was personal jurisdiction over the defendant being the sole issue for adjudication by the court.
The court explained that specific requirements apply to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over litigants who are not residents of the state in which the court sits. The parties seeking to establish personal jurisdiction, in this case the wife who suffered catastrophic injuries and her husband, bore the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. They were required to satisfy standards for the exercise of personal jurisdiction the U.S. Supreme Court has prescribed based on its interpretation of the Constitution’s due process provisions.

At the first stage of the due process analysis courts are to consider whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state in which the defendant has been sued to have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in the state. At the second stage of the due process analysis, courts are to consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The court reasoned that there were no facts establishing a link between the activities directed by the defendant car maker to New Mexico and the accident forming the basis of the litigation that would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. According to the court, the injured plaintiff had purchased her car at a used car dealership in New Mexico. Prior to her having title to the car, the car had been titled in California. Focusing on those facts the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not made a prima facie showing of facts supporting the exercise of jurisdiction. The court then denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to take limited discovery concerning jurisdiction on the basis that the plaintiffs purportedly did not articulate with specificity what facts could be obtained through jurisdictional discovery or how the facts would prevent prejudice to them. Why the plaintiffs could reasonably be expected to articulate what facts they could discover before taking discovery is not apparent from the ruling.

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.

The case followed a fatal car accident. According to the district court’s ruling, a man had allegedly sold his house in Arizona and was driving in New Mexico on his way to his father’s home in Wisconsin at the time of the accident. His intention was to relocate his family to live with his father, and so the family came with its belongings. He was driving a pickup truck and pulling another. His wife and children followed in a U-haul truck rented for the move. A tire failed on the truck he was towing, causing him to lose control of the truck he was driving, which crossed the median and rolled over.

After the person died from the injuries he suffered in the accident, a personal representative of his estate sued two companies on the basis that they had sold the decedent defective tires. The lawsuit alleged causes of action for violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, and for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The plaintiff sought a recovery of damages, including punitive damages in a complaint filed in New Mexico state court. The defendants removed the case to federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), removable cases include civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

The defendants took the position that the case was between citizens of different states because they were citizens of Arizona, which was not disputed, and the decedent should be considered a citizen of Wisconsin at the time of his death because Wisconsin was his destination at the time of his death, which was disputed. The plaintiff asserted in response that the removal was untimely and that the decedent’s domicile remained in Arizona at the time of his death. The court was willing to consider the removal timely and rejected the attempted removal on the merits. The court reasoned that in order to establish domicile in a particular state, a person must be physically present in the state and intend to remain there. The court applied an “all-things-considered” approach, recognizing that any number of factors might shed light on domicile. Among the factors that could, generally, have bearing on the domicile analysis the court listed: “the party’s current residence; voter registration and voting practices; situs of personal and real property; location of brokerage and bank accounts; membership in unions, fraternal organizations, churches, clubs, and other associations; place of employment or business; driver’s license and automobile registration; payment of taxes; as well as several other aspects of human life and activity.”

The court concluded that because the decedent had not made his way to Wisconsin, the decedent could not be considered to be domiciled in Wisconsin for purposes of considering the dispute before the court to be between citizens of different states. Accordingly, the district court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand and sent the case back to the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico, where the plaintiff had filed the case.

Accidents can lead to personal injuries or loss of life that devastate families. If you or your loved one was injured in an accident, there may be grounds for an award of damages including punitive damages. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are coping with the injury or wrongful death of a loved one with losses, including the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico car accident 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 Trial Court Rules Personal Injury Case Should Proceed to Trial

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

The plaintiff had sued the defendant in state court in Santa Fe County, alleging liability on tort theories including personal injury, product liability, and defective products. The defendant responded to the lawsuit, which was filed on November 3, 2016, by removing it to federal court via a motion filed on September 27, 2017. A few weeks later, the plaintiff sought and achieved a stay. His subsequent stay motion was denied for several reasons.

First, the court articulated the standard it was using, explaining that the party seeking a stay must justify the request by clear and convincing evidence that outweighed the potential harm to the party against which the stay was to be operative. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not show, under this standard, that staying the case until July 2019 outweighed the potential harm to the defendant.

The court expressed sympathy for the plaintiff’s health issues but could not accept the plaintiff’s position that he would be prepared to continue litigation on his claims in July 2019 but not before then. Similarly, the court rejected the plaintiff’s financial reasons for seeking a stay, which he alleged to be that he was unable to effectively litigate due to financial obligations, but he would be able to go forward if allowed to stay the complaint until 2019. The court also rejected the reasons for seeking a stay characterized by the plaintiff as juridical, which were that the defendant would not be prejudiced. For various reasons discussed in the court’s ruling, the plaintiff’s stay motion was ultimately denied.

The situation can be read as reflective of the difficulties associated with prosecuting a case without counsel. The plaintiff had health issues, which are, unfortunately, not unusual in the context of someone seeking compensation for personal injuries. He also had family care obligations and financial issues, which are also not unusual.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit was not dismissed by the court. But absent a stay – to avoid the possibility of dismissal for failure to prosecute – the pro se plaintiff would need to either find counsel or proceed with prosecution of the case without representation. Proceeding could entail serving and responding to discovery requests, lining up expert witnesses, who typically charge for their time, and negotiating with a sophisticated corporate defendant represented by counsel. It is a lot for a person who has been injured to handle without help.

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:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

Bifurcation Not Mandated in Lawsuit by Insured Plaintiff against her Insurance Company Following Car Accident, According to New Mexico Court