1999 -NMCA- 24, Wolford v. Lasater

• Decision Date: 16 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 18788,18788
• Citation: 973 P.2d 866,1999 NMCA 24,126 N.M. 614
• Parties: , 1999 -NMCA- 24 Teresa WOLFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger LASATER, Lynn Izatt, San Juan County Sheriff, Board of County Commissioners of San Juan County, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 866

973 P.2d 866

126 N.M. 614, 1999 -NMCA- 24

Teresa WOLFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger LASATER, Lynn Izatt, San Juan County Sheriff, Board of County Commissioners of San Juan County Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18788.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Dec. 16, 1998.

Certiorari Denied, No. 25543,

Feb. 2, 1999.

Stephen T. LeCuyer, Mettler & LeCuyer, P.C., Corrales, for Appellant.

Ronald J. Childress, Elaine R. Dailey, Klecan & Childress, Albuquerque, for Appellees.

OPINION

APODACA, Judge.

¶1 Plaintiff appeals the trial court's dismissal of her claims and denial of her motion to amend her complaint. Plaintiff sued Defendants for malicious prosecution, false arrest, abuse of process, and negligent supervision. Her motion to amend sought to assert a claim of negligent investigation. These claims arose from Plaintiff's prosecution for forgery and embezzlement of money from her workplace. She raises four issues on appeal: (1) claim preclusion does not bar her state law claims in state court, (2) the statute of limitations does not bar the claim of negligent investigation, (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiff leave to amend, and (4) justice requires granting her motion to amend. Unpersuaded by Plaintiff's arguments, we affirm the trial court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Plaintiff worked for the incumbent sheriff of San Juan County. Defendant Roger Lasater defeated the incumbent in an election. Later, Plaintiff was charged with forgery and embezzlement of money from the Sheriff's Department. A jury found Plaintiff not guilty. Because of this prosecution, Plaintiff filed her tort claims against Defendants in the trial court. She also pursued these tort claims and other constitutional claims in federal court.

¶3 The trial court stayed its proceedings pending adjudication of the claims in federal court. The federal court eventually granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the basis that probable cause existed for Plaintiff's arrest and prosecution. The opinion of the federal court, however, did not identify or address Plaintiff's negligent-supervision claim. The federal appellate court affirmed. See Wolford v. Lasater, 78 F.3d 484 (10th Cir.1996). Plaintiff then filed motions in the trial court to vacate the stay of proceedings and for leave to amend her complaint to assert a new claim of negligent investigation. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend because of claim preclusion and the statute of limitations. The trial court ruled that Plaintiff's negligent-investigation claim did not have merit. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted, based on its order denying Plaintiff's motion to amend and the federal court decisions.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards of Review

¶4 We review de novo the trial court's application of claim preclusion. See Anaya v. City of Albuquerque, 1996-NMCA-092, p 5, 122 N.M. 326, 924 P.2d 735 (stating that determination of claim preclusion was legal question reviewable de novo). We also consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. See Slide-A-Ride of Las Cruces, Inc. v. Citizens Bank, 105 N.M. 433, 436, 733 P.2d 1316, 1319 (1987) (reviewing denial of leave to amend complaint for an abuse of discretion).

B. Claim Preclusion

¶5 Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars subsequent actions "involving the same claim, demand or cause of action." Black's Law Dictionary 905 (abr. 6th ed.1991). Claim preclusion applies where there is " '(1) identity of parties or privies, (2) identity of capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made, (3)[the]same cause of action, and (4)[the]same subject matter.' " City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 110 N.M. 425, 432, 796 P.2d 1121, 1128 (Ct.App.1990) (quoting Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 694, 652 P.2d 240, 244 (1982), overruled on other grounds by Universal Life Church v. Coxon, 105 N.M. 57, 59, 728 P.2d 467, 469 (1986)). Additionally, the parties must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate issues arising from the claim, and there must have been a final decision on the merits. See City of Las Vegas, 110 N.M. at 432, 796 P.2d at 1128.

1. Federal and State Standards for Summary Judgment

¶6 Plaintiff argues that claim preclusion does not apply here because her burden under federal construction of summary judgment was greater than under state court interpretation. For example, Plaintiff relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), which holds that summary judgment may be granted "[i]f the evidence is merely colorable." Plaintiff also notes lower federal court interpretation of the summary judgment standard. See, e.g., Martin v. Daily Express, Inc., 878 F.Supp. 91, 94 (N.D.Ohio 1995) (explaining that "[t]he non-movant must show more than a scintilla of evidence to overcome summary judgment"). Additionally, Plaintiff refers us to legal commentary maintaining that relitigation of an issue is not precluded where "[t]he party against whom preclusion is sought had a significantly heavier burden of persuasion with respect to the issue in the initial action than in the subsequent action." Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28(4) (1980).

¶7 Plaintiff contrasts the federal authority with cases from our state courts. She quotes Lopez v. Kline, 1998-NMCA-016, p 8, 124 N.M. 539, 953 P.2d 304, which gives the benefit of all reasonable doubt to the party opposing summary judgment in determining the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Our Court in Jemez Properties, Inc. v. Lucero, 94 N.M. 181, 185, 608 P.2d 157, 161 (Ct.App.1979), reasoned that summary judgment should be denied where the facts support equally logical but conflicting inferences. Plaintiff also notes Maxey v. Quintana, 84 N.M. 38, 42, 499 P.2d 356, 360 (Ct.App.1972), which held that intent is usually a question for the jury and may be inferred from the circumstances. According to Plaintiff's reading of Gallegos v. Wallace, 74 N.M. 760, 765, 398 P.2d 982, 986 (1964), overruled on other grounds by McGeehan v. Bunch, 88 N.M. 308, 314, 540 P.2d 238, 244 (1975), the credibility of witnesses is an issue of fact for the jury that summary judgment cannot resolve.

¶8 Defendants present four main points in rebuttal. First, Defendants observe that none of the cases relied on by Plaintiff prohibit claim preclusion because of different standards for summary judgment. Second, Defendants argue that New Mexico federal and state law standards for summary judgment are the same. They cite two state cases, Goradia v. Hahn Co., 111 N.M. 779, 780-81, 810 P.2d 798, 799-800 (1991), and Paca v. K-Mart Corp., 108 N.M. 479, 480, 775 P.2d 245, 246 (1989), that refer to federal rationale on summary judgment. Defendants challenge Plaintiff's interpretation of the benefit of the doubt that our state cases give the party opposing summary judgment. In Goodman v. Brock, 83 N.M. 789, 792, 498 P.2d 676, 679 (1972), our Supreme Court quoted with approval 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1234, at 124-26 (Rev'd by Wright 1958):

"Though it has been said that summary judgment should not be granted if there is the 'slightest doubt' as to the facts, such statements are a rather misleading gloss on a rule which speaks in terms of 'genuine issue as to any material fact,' and would, if taken literally, mean that there could hardly ever be a summary judgment, for at least a slight doubt can be developed as to practically all things human. A better formulation would be that the party opposing the motion is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts in determining whether a genuine issue exists. If there are such reasonable doubts, summary judgment should be denied. A substantial dispute as to a material fact forecloses summary judgment."

Defendants conclude that this reasonable doubt standard is the same as the federal standard and the same standard that the federal courts applied in this case.

¶9 Third, Defendants argue that because the federal trial and appellate courts' rulings in this case turned on the issue of probable cause, a different summary judgment standard is irrelevant. The federal district court evaluated whether probable cause existed for Plaintiff's arrest. Defendants note that the federal district court cited both federal and state cases in its analysis. See, e.g., Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Jennings v. Hinkle, 115 N.M. 387, 851 P.2d 509 (Ct.App.1993). According to Defendants, federal and state examination of probable cause is the same. See, e.g., Jennings, 115 N.M. at 389, 851 P.2d at 511 (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 164-72, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), for probable cause determination).

¶10 Finally, Defendants note that Plaintiff chose to proceed in federal court. Conceding that the claims in both suits were the same, Plaintiff moved to stay the proceedings in the trial court. Defendants assert that, if different federal law standards concerned Plaintiff, she could have chosen to litigate in the trial court instead. Defendants ultimately conclude that Plaintiff is "not entitled to more than one fair bite at the apple." Ford v. New Mexico Dep't of Pub. Safety, 119 N.M. 405, 407, 891 P.2d 546, 548 (Ct.App.1994).

¶11 We are not persuaded by Plaintiff's arguments against application of claim preclusion in this appeal. There is no case law barring claim preclusion based on summary judgment standards that may differ in state and federal courts. We agree with Defendants' argument that the federal and our own state's constructions of summary judgment do not differ substantively. Plaintiff argues that, under New Mexico law, intent and credibility are issues for the jury, Maxey v. Quintana, 84 N.M. 38, 42, 499 P.2d 356, 360 (Ct.App.1972), and thus, asserts that evidence of false and...