Dir. of the Labor Relations Div. of the N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions ex rel. Elliott v. N.M. Leisure Inc./ Tex. Leisure
| Decision Date | 23 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-37466,A-1-CA-37466 |
| Citation | 484 P.3d 999 |
| Parties | DIRECTOR OF the LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION OF the NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF Claimants Linda ELLIOTT, Mary Ann Dietz, and Karen Wells, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NEW MEXICO LEISURE INC. / TEXAS LEISURE d/b/a Comfort Inn & Suites, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Amye Green, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph Dworak, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellees
Steven K. Sanders & Associates, L.L.C., Steven K. Sanders, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
{1} Defendant New Mexico Leisure, Inc. (NM Leisure) appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of its trial de novo appeal from the magistrate court, pursuant to Rule 1-041(E)(1) NMRA. NM Leisure raises two issues on appeal: (1) the district court erred in assigning to NM Leisure, the appellant in a trial de novo appeal, the primary responsibility to take action to bring its appeal to trial or other final disposition pursuant to Rule 1-041(E)(1) ; (2) the district court abused its discretion under the circumstances of this case in holding that NM Leisure failed to take significant action, without justification or excuse, for more than a two-year period, and in dismissing on that basis. Concluding that NM Leisure bears the primary responsibility to bring a trial de novo appeal from a magistrate court to final disposition in district court, and that the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute was a proper exercise of the court's discretion, we affirm.
{2} This case arose out of claims by three former employees of NM Leisure for payment of wages due upon discharge from their employment, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 50-4-2 (2005). The Director of the Labor Relations Division of the Department of Workforce Solutions (the Director) filed this action in the magistrate court on behalf of the three employees. See NMSA 1978, § 50-4-8(A) (1983) (). The magistrate court tried the cases and entered judgments against NM Leisure for wages and other compensation due each employee, together with post-judgment interest. The judgments provided NM Leisure notice of its right to appeal to the district court within fifteen days and of the requirement to set an appeal bond pursuant to Rule 2-705(A), (G) NMRA as a condition for staying enforcement of the judgments pending appeal.
{3} NM Leisure timely filed a notice of appeal to the district court. Initially, the case proceeded without delay. Six months after the appeal was filed, a proposed joint Rule 1-016(B) NMRA scheduling order was submitted by the parties for the district court's approval. Shortly thereafter, the Director filed a motion to amend the complaint, to which NM Leisure timely responded. The parties filed a stipulated request for a continuance of the hearing on the motion to amend in November 2012 on the grounds that the parties were discussing settlement. Following the grant of that continuance by the court, the case languished. There was no activity for four years. The district court did not enter the scheduling order. Counsel for NM Leisure admitted that he took no action to bring the proposed Rule 1-016(B) scheduling order to the court's attention during this four-year period.
{4} Four years after the last activity in the case, the Attorney General's Office filed notice of substitution of counsel and requested a status conference and a hearing on the Director's pending motion to amend the complaint. The Director also filed a motion to enforce the judgments of the magistrate court or, in the alternative, to require NM Leisure to post a supersedeas bond. The motion informed the court that NM Leisure had neither paid the judgments nor posted the bond required to stay the judgments in the more than six years the appeal had been pending.
{5} The hearing and status conference were held on August 3, 2017. The original district court judge had retired in 2013, during the four-year period of inactivity, and his successor presided. The court expressed concern about the age of the case, ordered the parties to prepare and submit a proposed joint scheduling order within fifteen days, and announced that it would schedule a trial date upon receipt of the proposed scheduling order. The court granted the Director's motion to amend the complaint. The Director's motion to enforce the judgments or, in the alternative, to require posting of bond was set for a later hearing.
{6} Following the hearing, counsel for the Director attempted to contact counsel for NM Leisure to prepare the proposed joint scheduling order requested by the district court. NM Leisure's counsel did not respond to several emails. After waiting a few days, the Director filed a motion to dismiss NM Leisure's appeal for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 1-041(E)(1). The motion reviewed the history of the proceedings, pointing to the more than six years that had passed since the filing of NM Leisure's appeal, the lack of any effort by NM Leisure during the previous five years to bring the case to trial, and the failure of NM Leisure to post bond or pay the judgments, as required by court rules. The motion informed the district court that counsel for NM Leisure was not cooperating with preparation of the proposed joint scheduling order requested by the district court. Several days later, on the last day of the fifteen-day period set by the district court, the Director submitted his proposed scheduling order without NM Leisure's participation or approval.
{7} At a hearing on August 23, 2017, NM Leisure's counsel addressed his failure to participate in the submission of the proposed scheduling order, explaining that he was in court on other proceedings and that his mother was ill, and requested leave of the district court to submit a proposed scheduling order. The district court agreed to allow NM Leisure to submit its proposed scheduling order by August 28, 2017, and indicated that the court would enter a Rule 1-016(B) order when it received the proposed order. NM Leisure's counsel assured the district court it would timely file the proposed scheduling order. NM Leisure failed to file a proposed scheduling order on August 28, 2017, as promised, or at any time thereafter.
{8} NM Leisure filed its response to the Director's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution after belatedly seeking an extension of time to do so. In its response, NM Leisure contended that it was the responsibility of the Attorney General's Office, as counsel for the plaintiff in a trial de novo appeal, to actively pursue the appeal to disposition. Arguing that the plaintiff in the magistrate court remained the "claimant" on appeal for purposes of Rule 1-041(E)(1), NM Leisure denied any responsibility for the more than six-year delay. NM Leisure argued, in the alternative, that it was not solely at fault, claiming that the delay in concluding the case was excused by the retirement of the original judge, three substitutions of counsel by the Attorney General's Office, and the failure of the Attorney General's Office to obtain a prompt ruling on the Director's motion to amend the complaint. Finally, NM Leisure suggested it would now be willing to accept the terms of the Director's recently filed proposed scheduling order.
{9} The district court scheduled a hearing on the Director's motion to dismiss approximately eight months after the filing of NM Leisure's response to the motion to dismiss. During this eight-month period, NM Leisure filed one motion: an unopposed motion to dismiss an individual mistakenly named as a defendant in the magistrate court, but took no other action. Also during this period, NM Leisure did not ask the court to enter a scheduling order or to set a trial date.
{10} At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, counsel for NM Leisure argued that the burden of bringing the case to conclusion was on the Director, as the plaintiff in the magistrate court; claimed credit for the activity by the Director just prior to the filing of the Director's motion to dismiss; claimed that NM Leisure's activity during the pendency of the motion to dismiss was sufficient activity to satisfy Rule 1-041(E)(1) ; asked the district court to enter the Director's proposed scheduling order submitted in August 2017; and suggested that although settlement discussions had not been productive, a mediation should be scheduled in the future.
{11} At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court granted the Director's motion to dismiss the appeal. NM Leisure appealed to this Court.
{12} We are asked to address two questions: (1) in an appeal from the magistrate court to district court, which party has the primary duty pursuant to Rule 1-041(E)(1) to bring the case to trial or other final disposition; and (2) assuming that duty is the appellant's (as we hold), did the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing NM Leisure's appeal pursuant to Rule 1-041(E)(1) for insufficient activity to bring the appeal to final disposition?
{13} Rule 1-041(E)(1) is central to both questions. It provides as follows:
Any party may move to dismiss the action, or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim with prejudice if the party asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action to bring such claim to trial or other final disposition within two (2) years from the filing of such action or claim. An action or claim shall not be dismissed if the party opposing the motion is in compliance with an order entered pursuant to Rule 1-016 ... or with any written stipulation approved by the court.
{14} We address each question in turn.
To continue reading
Request your trial