Martinez v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 03 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 09-0281 JB/LFG,CIV 09-0281 JB/LFG |
| Parties | PATRICIA MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MARTINEZ, LYNDA LATTA, ELIZABETH WHITEFIELD, individually and in her official capacity, PAUL WIEST, and JEAN SMITH, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United States' Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order and Report and Recommendation, filed June 26, 2012 (Doc. 238)("R&R); (ii) Plaintiff Patricia Martinez' objections to the R&R and (iii) the Motion to Certify Decree Divorce Dates - NM Supreme Court, filed November 13, 2012 (Doc. 310)("Motion to Certify"). P. Martinez filed the following motions addressing the Honorable Karen B. Molzen, Chief Magistrate Judge's findings in the R&R: (i) Motion to Strike Doc. 238, filed July 3, 2012 (Doc. 239)("Motion to Strike"); (ii) Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Doc. 238, filed July 3, 2012 (Doc. 240)("Motion to Extend"); (iii) Partial Objection to Doc. 242 and Response to Deadline - Doc. 240, filed July 13, 2012 (Doc. 243)("Partial Obj."); (iv) Objection 2 - Motion to Strike/Order/Report and Recommendation, filed July 24, 2012 (Doc. 246)("2nd Obj."); (v) Verified Affidavit to Defend - Supporting Objection 2 - Re: Doc. 238, filed July 24, 2012 (Doc. 247)("Verified Aff."); (vi) Reply to Motion to Extend Time (My Doc. 274) for Doc. 266 Issues and Memorandum in Support, filed October 17, 2012 (Doc. 305)("Reply"); and (vii) Amended - Verified Affidavit to Defend - Supporting Objections 2 - Re: Doc. 238 - (Doc. 247) - Memorandum in Support, filed November 13, 2012 (Doc. 311)("Amended Verified Aff."). The Court considers all of P. Martinez' objections, de novo, notwithstanding any issues of timeliness or how P. Martinez titled her pleadings. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendant Michael Martinez is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on P. Martinez' partition and accounting claims, because the doctrine of res judicata precludes the Court from reviewing some of P. Martinez' claims, and P. Martinez has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact whether the remaining property is community property; (ii) whether M. Martinez and Defendant Lynda Latta are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on P. Martinez allegations of malicious abuses of process addressed in the R&R and (iii) whether the Court should certify to the Supreme Court ofNew Mexico the question: When was the Martinezes' divorce final? The Court adopts the R&R in part and rejects the R&R in part, and the Court will deny the Motion to Certify. The Court concludes that M. Martinez is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on P. Martinez' partition and accounting claims, because the doctrine of res judicata precludes the Court from reviewing some of P. Martinez' claims, and the evidence before the Court demonstrates that the remaining property is not community property as a matter of law. The Court will not adopt Chief Judge Molzen's recommendation that the Court dismiss P. Martinez' claims to M. Martinez' personal property as time-barred under the relevant statute of limitations. The Court will adopt Chief Judge Molzen's recommendations in the R&R regarding P. Martinez' allegations of malicious abuse of process against M. Martinez and Latta. The Court will permit M. Martinez to amend his answer to state a statute of limitations defense to P. Martinez' allegations arising from M. Martinez conduct which occurred three-years before March 24, 2009, the date on which she brought this action in federal court. The Court also concludes that M. Martinez and Latta are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the remaining allegations addressed in the R&R. The doctrine of res judicata precludes the Court from reviewing some of P. Martinez' allegations and the other allegations addressed in the R&R fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact whether Latta committed malicious abuse of process as a matter of law. The Court will not, however, adopt Chief Judge Molzen's recommendation that the Court hold P. Martinez to any statements she made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding her inability to prosecute this case. Neither will the Court adopt Chief Judge Molzen's recommendation that the Court dismiss P. Martinez' case as a sanction for her failure to comply with court orders. Additionally, the Court will not adopt Chief Judge Molzen's recommendation that the case bedismissed in its entirety, because the R&R does not address all of P. Martinez' allegations of malicious abuse of process.
P. Martinez is the ex-wife of M. Martinez. See Amended Complaint at 2, filed April 8, 2009 (Doc. 3). P. Martinez and M. Martinez were divorced in the late 1990s, and Latta represented M. Martinez in the divorce and subsequent state court proceedings. See Amended Complaint at 16-17. The Court has previously stated the following facts regarding this case:
P. Martinez insists that M. Martinez, represented by his attorney, Ms. Latta, filed a malicious-abuse-of-process claim, filed numerous frivolous motions, engaged in forum-shopping, and lied to judges. P. Martinez also alleges that M. Martinez and Ms. Latta engaged in this conduct with the intent to deplete P. Martinez' resources, to keep her from pursuing her rights in a contract dispute initiated in Oklahoma, and to keep her from engaging in discovery that would uncover the assets that she alleges M. Martinez concealed during the divorce proceeding.
Martinez v. Martinez, No. CIV 09-0281 JB/LFG, Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2, (D.N.M. Mar. 30, 2010)(Doc. 81)(Browning, J.).
In March 2009, P. Martinez brought this lawsuit against M. Martinez and Latta, along with other Defendants whom the Court subsequently dismissed. P. Martinez alleges, among other claims, malicious abuse of process against both M. Martinez and Latta, and a claim of "partition and accounting" against M. Martinez. Amended Complaint at 32-49. See id. at 21-32. She seeks an award of damages against M. Martinez and Latta. See Amended Complaint at 49-51.
District courts may refer dispositive motions to a magistrate judge for a recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) (). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On December 11, 2009, the Court referred this matter to Chief Judge Molzen for proposed findings and a recommended disposition.2 See Order of Reference Relating to Bankruptcy Appeals, Social Security Appeals, Prisoner Cases, Non Prisoner Pro Se Cases, and Immigration Habeas Corpus Proceedings, filed December 11, 2009 (Doc. 66). On December 14, 2009, the Court amended the Order of Reference to correct an error. See Amended Order of Reference Relating to Bankruptcy Appeals, Social Security Appeals, Prisoner Cases, Non Prisoner Pro Se Cases, and Immigration Habeas Corpus Proceedings, filed December 14, 2009 (Doc. 67). The Order of Reference directed Chief Judge Molzen to conduct hearings, if warranted, and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), an ultimate disposition of the case.
The record in this case is long, and the Court has issued numerous interlocutory orders. The Court begins its discussion of the procedural history of this case with those motions and orders that have brought this case to its current procedural posture.
Chief Judge Molzen issued a scheduling order on May 21, 2010, and P. Martinez objected to it. See Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan, filed May 21, 2010 (Doc. 103)("Scheduling Order"); Objection to: 1 The Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan Provisions Filed May 21, 2010 (D 103) - and 2. to the Clerk's Minutes Filed on May 20, 2010 (D 99) With Brief in Support & Exhibits, filed June 2, 2010 (Doc. 107)("Objections to Scheduling Order"). Discovery closed in this matter on November 19, 2010. See Scheduling Order at 1. The Court overruled P. Martinez' Objections to Scheduling Order on December 21, 2010. SeeMemorandum Opinion and Order Denying Reconsideration, filed December 21, 2010 (Doc. 125)("Dec. 21 Order"). P. Martinez appealed the Dec. 21 Order on January 14, 2011, and the Tenth Circuit subsequently dismissed her appeal, finding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over her case, because the Court had not entered a final, appealable order or judgment. See Notice of Appeal, filed January 14, 2011 (Doc. 127); Order, filed April 19, 2011 (Doc. 142-1). After the Tenth Circuit dismissed P. Martinez' appeal, P. Martinez moved the Court for a new scheduling order, explaining that "[a]ll of the dates set forth in that [Scheduling] Order have been exhausted due to the wait for responses from your Court." Motion for New Scheduling Order to Judge Browning, filed April 24, 2011 (Doc. 143). P. Martinez subsequently informed the Court that she was "unable to properly continue to prosecute this case until the objections were ruled on by Judge Browning." Reply to Motion for New Scheduling Order at 1, filed May 2, 2011 (Doc. 150)("Reply to Scheduling Order"). P. Martinez asserted that the Court was required "by law" to address her Objections to Scheduling Order "before this case could continue to proceed." Reply to Scheduling Order at 1. P. Martinez asserted that, because the Court did not overrule her objections until after the discovery period ended, she has demonstrated good cause for modifying the Scheduling Order, as "all the deadline dates [were] exhausted and off track because the District Court's response did not come until after those dates were exhausted." Reply to Scheduling Order at 2. P. Martinez asserted that she could not "be held responsible if the time [the Scheduling Order] gives expires because you have waited...
To continue reading
Request your trial