AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, a former member of the New Mexico State University football team, filed a complaint for strict liability and negligence, alleging injuries sustained during football practice led to quadriplegia. The case centered around the discovery process and compliance issues, leading to the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendant, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), with prejudice as a sanction for multiple failures to comply with discovery obligations.

Procedural History

• District Court, August 2015: Dismissed Plaintiff’s strict liability claim with prejudice, ruling college football is not inherently dangerous (para 9).
• District Court, (Date N/A): Dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint against the NCAA with prejudice as a sanction for discovery violations (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that college football is an abnormally dangerous activity, warranting a strict liability claim, and contested the dismissal of his complaint as a sanction for discovery violations (paras 8, 2).
• Defendant (NCAA): Moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing among other things, that college football is not an abnormally dangerous activity and that recovery on both strict liability and negligence would be barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether college football is an abnormally dangerous activity that warrants a strict liability claim (para 8).
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice as a sanction for discovery violations (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order of dismissal with prejudice for the Plaintiff's complaint against the NCAA (para 5).

Reasons

• Majority Opinion (Judges Ives, Medina): The majority held that the Plaintiff failed to develop an argument to support the reversal of the district court’s dismissal order, specifically noting the failure to comply with appellate briefing requirements, including stating the applicable standard of review and citing legal authority. The majority found that the Plaintiff's counsel's failure to attend depositions, respond to discovery, comply with court-ordered deadlines, and attend a court hearing, particularly the willful failure to attend the Plaintiff's deposition, justified the dismissal with prejudice. The majority emphasized the principle that appellate courts should not perform the parties' work for them and that the district court's discretion in imposing sanctions for discovery violations was not abused (paras 1-4).
  Dissenting Opinion (Judge Henderson): Judge Henderson dissented, focusing on the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's strict liability claim with prejudice as a sanction, which had already been dismissed on different grounds nearly three years earlier. The dissent argued that the district court's action was unduly punitive and not supported by the circumstances, particularly given the agreement between the parties to dismiss the remaining negligence claims and the district court's failure to employ the correct legal standard to the Plaintiff's strict liability claim. The dissent would have reversed the district court's second dismissal of the strict liability claim and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard for determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous (paras 7-28).