Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC
Decision Date | 18 June 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 29,239.,29,239. |
Citation | 2009 NMCA 122,222 P.3d 675 |
Parties | Debra DICKENS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ruth Howe, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAUREL HEALTHCARE, LLC, d/b/a Laurel View Healthcare, Skilled Healthcare Group, LLC and The Rehabilitation Center of Albuquerque, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Harvey Law Firm, LLC, Dusti D. Harvey, Feliz A. Rael, Jennifer J. Foote, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.
Keleher & McLeod, P.A., Mary Behm, Spring V. Schofield, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee Laurel Healthcare, LLC.
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., W. Robert Lasater, Jr., Edward Ricco, MacDonnell Gordon, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. and The Rehabilitation Center of Albuquerque, LLC.
{1} Plaintiff's decedent was a resident at Laurel View Healthcare, a nursing home facility which Defendants owned and operated at different times. As personal representative of decedent, Plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury and wrongful death against Defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, relying on the agreement Decedent signed when she became a resident at Laurel View Healthcare. The district court granted the motions, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and ordered Plaintiff to pursue her claims by means of arbitration. Plaintiff then filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 1-059(E) NMRA and requested a hearing on the motion.
{2} In our calendar notice we proposed to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. In response, we received a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition from Skilled Healthcare Group, LLC1 and the Rehabilitation Center of Albuquerque (the Skilled Healthcare defendants) and a memorandum in support of our proposed disposition from Plaintiff. We have considered the arguments in opposition to proposed dismissal, but we are not persuaded that the order in this case is final and appealable at this time. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
{3} Plaintiff filed her Rule 1-059(E) motion on December 4, 2008. The Skilled Healthcare defendants filed a response to the motion on December 12, 2008, and Defendant Laurel Healthcare, LLC filed a response to the motion on February 6, 2009. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on Monday, January 5, 2009, divesting the district court of jurisdiction over the case. See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 241, 243-44, 824 P.2d 1033, 1043, 1045-46 (1992) ( ). At the time the notice of appeal was filed, the district court had not ruled on Plaintiff's Rule 1-059(E) motion.
{4} The Rule 1-059(E) motion filed in this case was a motion asking the district court to alter or change the same order which was on appeal before this Court. Therefore, the filing of the motion rendered the order not final for purposes of appeal. Kelly Inn No. 102, 113 N.M. at 238, 824 P.2d at 1040 (). Our Supreme Court has held that a motion under Rule 1-059(E) is not subject to automatic denial after thirty days. See Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2007-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 12-13, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99. Instead, in a case where a Rule 1-059(E) motion has been filed, the time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date of entry of an order that expressly disposes of the motion. Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc., 2007-NMSC-051, ¶ 16, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99; see also Grygorwicz v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 ( ). In our calendar notice, we proposed to hold that because the district court had no opportunity to rule on Plaintiff's Rule 1-059(E) motion, the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. We proposed to remand to allow the district court to address Plaintiff's motion, and we noted that Plaintiff will have the opportunity to appeal from a final order which may result in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
{5} The Skilled Healthcare defendants claim that Plaintiff "gave every indication" that she "no longer desired" that her motion be ruled upon, but that she wanted to proceed immediately with an appeal. In support of their claims, the Skilled Healthcare defendants point out that Plaintiff did not file a reply to the responses to her motion, she did nothing to have the motion addressed before the district judge retired at the end of 2008, and she did not claim that the district court erred by failing to rule on the motion. The Skilled Healthcare defendants assert that we have routinely accepted jurisdiction in cases where post-judgment motions have not been ruled on before a notice of appeal is filed. According to the Skilled Healthcare defendants, this Court has, in the past, decided that the motion is waived or abandoned when a party files a notice of appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Romero
...does not begin to run, until the district court disposes of the motion.”); Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009–NMCA–122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 (“[W]hen a ... motion that challenges the district court's determination of the rights of the parties, is pending in the district cour......
-
Village of Hatch Area Businesses v. Faught
...effectively renders the decision non-final for purposes of appeal. See Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 4, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 (observing that the filing of "a motion asking the district court to alter or change the same order . . . on appeal . . . render[s] the or......
-
Ski Valley Rd. Props., LLC v. Kruskal
...does not begin to run, until the district court disposes of the motion"); Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 (holding that the district court's order is non-final if a post-judgment motion is pending which "could alter, amend, or moot the order......
-
Sutin v. Firm
...could alter, amend, or moot thejudgment entered by the district court. See Dickens v. Laurel Healthcare, LLC, 2009-NMCA-122, ¶ 6, 147 N.M. 303, 222 P.3d 675 ("[W]hen a Rule 1-059(E) motion, or other motion that challenges the district court's determination of the rights of the parties, is p......