Wrongful Death Estate of Archuleta v. Thi of N.M., LLC
| Decision Date | 09 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 31,950,31,950 |
| Parties | WRONGFUL DEATH ESTATE OF NATIVIDAD ARCHULETA, deceased, by SINFER ARCHULETA, personal representative, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THI OF NEW MEXICO, LLC, THI OF BALTIMORE, INC., FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, and FUNDAMENTAL CLINICAL CONSULTING, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and THI OF NEW MEXICO AT VIDA ENCANTADA, ABE BRIARWOOD CORP., and SHARON INOUE, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY
Harvey Law Firm
Dusti D. Harvey
Jennifer J. Foote
Albuquerque, NM
Sorey Law Firm
R. Daniel Sorey
Longview, TX
for Appellant
Proctor & Associates, P.C.
Lori D. Proctor
Houston, TX
for Appellee THI of New Mexico, LLC
The Simons Firm, LLP
Faith Kalman Reyes
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee THI of Baltimore, Inc.
Brunner Quinn
Rick L. Brunner
Patrick M. Quinn
Columbus, OH
for Appellees Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC and Fundamental
Clinical Consulting, LLC
{1} Following Natividad Archuleta's death, her estate, acting through its personal representative, Sinfer Archuleta (Plaintiff), sued five related entities for damagesunder joint venture and direct liability theories premised on the allegation that the decedent's death resulted from neglectful and abusive treatment during her residency at one of the entities, a Las Vegas, New Mexico nursing home. The district court granted summary judgments in favor of four of the entities, leaving for trial only Plaintiff's claims against the nursing home. Plaintiff appeals.
{2} We conclude that the court erred by granting summary judgments in favor of the four defendant entities, having first deprived Plaintiff of discovery that may well have supported her claims and striking Plaintiff's expert—whose testimony may have explained the practical meaning of Plaintiff's evidence had discovery been granted. We reverse the court's discovery rulings and its order striking Plaintiff's expert. In tandem with our reversal as to Plaintiff's discovery and expert, we also reverse the court's summary judgments as to direct liability and joint venture.
{3} Plaintiff claimed wrongful death, negligence, negligence per se, misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, and punitive damages against a number of related Delaware limited liability companies and one corporate entity. Defendants who are Appellees in this appeal are: Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC (Fundamental Administrative); Fundamental Clinical Consulting, LLC (Fundamental Clinical); THI of New Mexico, LLC (THI New Mexico); and THI of Baltimore, Inc.(THI Baltimore). We refer to these four entities collectively as "Defendants." Fundamental Administrative and Fundamental Clinical, when referenced together, are hereinafter "Fundamental Defendants"; and THI New Mexico and THI Baltimore, when referenced together, are hereinafter "THI Defendants." The nursing home at the center of the case, THI of New Mexico at Vida Encantada, LLC (Vida), is not a party in this appeal.
{4} At all relevant times, THI New Mexico was the sole non-managing member1 of Vida. THI Baltimore is the sole managing member of THI New Mexico, and the sole non-managing member of Fundamental Clinical. Fundamental Clinical provided consulting services to Vida pursuant to a "Clinical Support Agreement." And Fundamental Administrative provided various contracted-for services to Vida pursuant to an "Administrative Support Agreement." Fundamental Long-Term Care Holdings, LLC, originally one of the defendants in this case, is the sole shareholder of THI Baltimore and the sole member of Fundamental Administrative. Fundamental Long-Term Care Holdings, LLC was dismissed as a party in this lawsuit by the district court for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fundamental Administrative provided legaland litigation support services to THI Defendants and to Fundamental Administrative. Fundamental Administrative also provided accounting services to THI Baltimore and to Fundamental Clinical.
{5} Plaintiff alleged that during the decedent's residency at Vida the decedent suffered injuries, including weight loss, dehydration, and pressure sores. Plaintiff further alleged that the decedent was hospitalized as a result of her harm and injuries and that, owing to her deteriorated state of health resulting from Vida's maltreatment, she died.
{6} Plaintiff claimed that Defendants and each of them (each Defendant), among themselves and also together with Vida, were engaged in a joint venture, and as such, each Defendant's acts and omissions in regard to the operation of Vida and the decedent's residency were imputable to all other Defendants jointly and severally. In addition, Plaintiff alleged that each Defendant was directly, individually liable. The crux of Plaintiff's complaint was that Defendants individually and as part of a joint venture underfunded Vida, limited Vida's staff and supplies, and failed to remedy known safety issues, leading to the decedent's injuries.
{7} After Plaintiff was essentially denied much of her discovery on the ground that her motions to compel discovery and depositions were not timely, and shortly before the trial setting, Fundamental Administrative and Fundamental Clinical (jointly) andTHI New Mexico and THI Baltimore (separately) filed motions for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's direct liability claims against them arguing, essentially, that because they owed no duty of care to the decedent, Plaintiff's claims against them failed as a matter of law. THI Baltimore and Fundamental Defendants also argued that even if they had a duty, there was no breach or causation as a matter of law. Additionally, Defendants filed a joint motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's joint venture claim against them, arguing, among other things, that undisputed evidence did not support Plaintiff's claim. The district court granted all of the motions for partial summary judgment.
{8} The district court did not indicate on what undisputed facts it relied in granting the partial summary judgments, nor did it recite its reasons either verbally or in its orders supporting its orders of partial summary judgment other than the language in Rule 1-056(C) NMRA. See Garrett v. Nissen Corp., 1972-NMSC-046, ¶¶ 11-12, 84 N.M. 16, 498 P.2d 1359 ()2, overruled on other grounds by Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., 1992-NMSC-008, 113 N.M. 153, 824 P.2d 293. Along with her attack on the district court's orders of summary judgment, Plaintiff contends on appeal that the court abused its discretion by denying certain discovery that would have helped to illuminate her claims and by striking her expert.
{9} The case lasted 856 days from the complaint to the final appealable order. The record consists of over 3,000 pages. The case was not tried, but was decided on summary judgment. Discovery was tortuous. "The remains of the day"3 leave thisCourt with the unenviable and disconcerting task of arriving at a sound, principled result. Discovery matters and summary judgment determinations need not be so complicated at the trial and appellate levels. Counsel must spend the time, care, and resources necessary to timely, fairly, and professionally resolve discovery issues no matter how complex and difficult the case. Courts that fail to carefully, timely, and actively control the complex discovery and their dockets and make timely and transparent rulings are accomplices to a bewildering nightmare record on appeal. Based on our analyses that follow, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff's discovery and erred in granting Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, and we reverse and remand the case to the district court.
{10} We do so in a memorandum opinion because the manner in which this case was handled spoils any precedential value this case might otherwise have had. We give the benefit of the doubt to Plaintiff as should appear evident in this Opinion. See Spencer v. Health Force, Inc., 2005-NMSC-002, ¶ 7, 137 N.M. 64, 107 P.3d 504 ().
{11} We begin with a discussion of Plaintiff's second point on appeal, which is that the district court abused its discretion when it denied her essential discovery and struck her expert witness. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, her forty-eight-page brief in chief devotes a total of approximately two pages to this point. After stating that she unsuccessfully attempted to obtain discovery and was required to seek court assistance to compel discovery, Plaintiff states that the court denied "the bulk of [her] requested discovery which would have shed more light on the exact nature of the relationship between the parties, and the precise roles of the individual parties in the oversight, operation[,] and management of Vida Encantada." The impropriety of which Plaintiff complains is the court's grant of summary judgments against her after...
To continue reading
Request your trial