Tafoya v. New Mexico

• Decision Date: 04 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. CIV 19-0675 JB/SCY,CIV 19-0675 JB/SCY
• Citation: 517 F.Supp.3d 1250
• Parties: Erika TAFOYA, as next of kin to Maliyah Jones, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. State of NEW MEXICO ; New Mexico Department of Human Services; Children, Youth & Families Department; Taylor Tots Daycare; Sandi Taylor, Individually, and Mary Taylor, Individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

517 F.Supp.3d 1250

Erika TAFOYA, as next of kin to Maliyah Jones, Deceased, Plaintiff,

v.State of NEW MEXICO ; New Mexico Department of Human Services; Children, Youth & Families Department; Taylor Tots Daycare; Sandi Taylor, Individually, and Mary Taylor, Individually, Defendants.

No. CIV 19-0675 JB/SCY

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed February 4, 2021

Troy J. Pradia, The Cox Pradia Law Firm, P.L.L.C, Houston, Texas and John Paul Valdez, Davie & Valdez, P.C., El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Stephen Shanor, Chelsea Rae Green, Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P., Roswell, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants State of New Mexico and Children, Youth and Families Department

Ronald J. Childress, Urvashi Parkhani, Childress Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the DefendantsTaylor Tots Daycare, Sandi Taylor, and Mary Taylor

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the State of New Mexico, Children Youth & Families Department's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed July 17, 2020(Doc. 21)("MTD").The Court held a hearing on October 6, 2020.SeeClerks’ Minutes, at 1, filedOctober 6, 2020(Doc. 48).DefendantsState of New Mexico and Children Youth & Families Department(the "StateDefendants") request that the Court dismiss PlaintiffErika Tafoya's claims against them under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure.SeeMTDat 1.The primary issues are: (i) whether the StateDefendants are immune from Tafoya's claims under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; (ii) whether the New Mexico Tort Claims Act ("NMTCA"), N.M.S.A. §§ 41-4-1 to -27, waives the StateDefendants’ Eleventh Amendment immunity; and (iii) whether the Court should grant Tafoya's request to amend her First Amended Complaint for Wrongful Death, Personal Injury, Loss of Parental Consortium and Other Damages Under the New Mexico Wrongful Death ActandNew Mexico Tort Claims Act and New Mexico Statutory and Common Law Pro Hac Vice, filed August 9, 2020(Doc. 7)("First Amended Complaint").The Court concludes that: (i)the StateDefendants have Eleventh Amendment immunity and that Tafoya cannot sue the StateDefendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because the StateDefendants are not persons for purposes of § 1983;(ii) there is no waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity under the NMTCA, because the DefendantsSandi Taylor and Mary Taylor(collectively the "Taylors") are not public employees and there is no waiver of immunity for negligent supervision; and (iii) it would be futile to amend the First Amended Complaint, because the Court's Eleventh Amendment analysis would not change.Accordingly, the Court grants the MTD, and dismisses Tafoya's claims against the StateDefendants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from the First Amended Complaint.The Court accepts the factual allegations as true for the purposes of the MTD.SeeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868(2009);Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929(2007);Sanders v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138, 1141(10th Cir.2012)(concluding that a court accepts "all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and grants all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in that party's favor").The Court does not, however, accept as true the legal conclusions within the First Amended Complaint.SeeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937("[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.").

This case arises out of the death of child M.J, who passed away on July 25, 2017.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶¶ 5-8, at 3.Tafoya is M.J.’s mother.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 1, at 2.The Taylors operate DefendantTaylor Tots Daycare, which is located in Portales, New Mexico.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶¶ 6, 20 at 3, 6.The Taylors are both New Mexico residents.

SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶¶ 21-22 at 6.

Defendant Children, Youth, and Families Department("CYFD") is a State of New Mexico agency.First Amended Complaint¶ 19, at 5.SeeN.M.S.A. §§ 9-2a-1 to -24.The State of New Mexico has charged CYFD with the " ‘administ[ration] of all laws and the exercise of all functions formerly administered and exercised by the youth authority, as well as administering certain functions related to children, youth and families that were formerly administered by other departments or agencies of the state.’ "First Amended Complaint¶ 19, at 5(quotingN.M.S.A. § 9-2a-2(A) ).The State of New Mexico has charged CYFD with developing " ‘state policies and plans for services to children, youth, and families,’ " and " ‘advoca[ting] for services for children, youth and families within the State of New Mexico.’ "First Amended Complaint¶ 19, at 5-6(quotingN.M.S.A. §§ 9-2a-2(B), (C) ).

Before July 25, 2017, CYFD informed the Taylors that they were not permitted to transport children by car.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 9, at 3.Seealsoid.¶ 11, at 10.CYFD did not monitor whether the Taylors transported children by car.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 9, at 3.CYFD did not monitor whether the Taylors obtained necessary permission slips from parents for field trips.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 10, at 3.On one occasion, CYFD investigated a complaint and found that nine out of nine children did not have the required permission slips to attend a field trip.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 10, at 3-4.CYFD "leaves it up to" daycare centers to inform CYFD if the daycare has made "any changes in vehicles or if new vehicles are purchased."First Amended Complaint¶ 11, at 4.Before July 25, 2017, CYFD did not inform parents that Taylor Tots Daycare is not allowed to transport children by vehicle.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 12, at 4.

On July 25, 2017, M.J. was attending daycare at Taylor Tots Daycare.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 6, at 3.That day, the Taylors drove twelve minor children, including M.J., to a park.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 7, at 3.Later, the Taylors drove back to Taylor Tots Daycare, and, upon returning to Taylor Tots Daycare, the Taylors did not do a headcount of the children.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶¶ 6-7, at 3.At approximately 12:45 p.m., the Taylors left M.J. in a vehicle.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 6, at 3.The vehicle was "scorching hot."First Amended Complaint¶ 6, at 3.

At approximately 3:25 p.m., Sandi Taylor went back to the vehicle to retrieve paperwork.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 8, at 3.The Taylors then discovered M.J. in the vehicle.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 8, at 3.M.J. was taken to a hospital, but she was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶ 8, at 3.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2020, Tafoya, as Wrongful Death Personal Representative and as next of kin to M.J., decedent, filed the Complaint for Wrongful Death, Personal Injury, Loss of Parental Consortium and Other Damages Under the New Mexico Wrongful Death ActandNew Mexico Tort Claims Act and New Mexico Statutory and Common Law Pro Hac Vice, filed July 22, 2020(Doc. 1)("Complaint").On August 9, 2020, Tafoya filed the First Amended Complaint, alleging four causes of action.SeeFirst Amended Complaintat ¶¶ 23-47, 1-11.Tafoya alleges (i) violation of substantive due process for the Defendants’ failure to keep children reasonably safe from harm; (ii) negligence; (iii) negligent hiring and retention; and (iv) loss of parental consortium.SeeFirst Amended Complaint¶¶ 23-47, at 6-11

1.The MTD.

The StateDefendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 16, 2020.SeeMTDat 1.The StateDefendants argue that they should be dismissed under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure, because the causes the of actions against them fail as a matter of law.SeeMTDat 1-2.The StateDefendants argue that (i) the CYFD is an "arm of the state" and it is, therefore, immune from federal law claims under the Eleventh Amendment;(ii) CYFD is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (iii) CYFD is immune from Plaintiff's state law claims under the NMTCA, because no waiver of immunity exists.SeeMTDat 1-2.

The StateDefendants contend that under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, a "complaint must have enough factual allegations, taken as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "MTDat 3(quotingBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929(2007) ).The StateDefendants maintain that " ‘mere "labels and conclusions," and "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" will not suffice; a plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to support each claim.’ "MTDat 3(quotingKansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214(10th Cir.2011)(quotingBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 )).

The StateDefendants argue that Tafoya's federal law claims fail under the Eleventh Amendment.SeeMTDat 4.The Eleventh Amendment provides: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."U.S. Const. amend. XI.The StateDefendants maintain that the Eleventh Amendment makes a state immune from suit from its own citizens or citizens of another state without the state's consent.SeeMTDat 4(citingHunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1192(D.N.M.2013)(Browning, J.);Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 109 L.Ed.2d 264(1990) ).The StateDefendants contend that state agencies and state officials are also immune as " ‘an arm of the state.’ "MTDat 4(quotingHunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch, 951...