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

• Plaintiff Nina Strausberg filed a lawsuit against Arbor Brook Healthcare nursing home and others, alleging negligence despite having signed a mandatory arbitration agreement prior to her admission for treatment. The Defendants moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss Plaintiff’s case, arguing that the arbitration agreement was enforceable.

Procedural History

• Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC (Strausberg I), 2012-NMCA-006: The court reversed the district court's decision, holding that the district court erroneously shifted the burden to Plaintiff to prove that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.
• Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC (Strausberg II), 2013-NMSC-032: The Supreme Court reversed Strausberg I, holding that unconscionability is an affirmative defense and the party asserting unconscionability has the burden of proving that the contract is unenforceable.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable due to procedural and substantive unconscionability.
• Defendants: Argued that the arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable because the language creating an exception to the arbitration requirement applies to both parties.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by granting Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and by dismissing Plaintiff’s case.
• Whether the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable.

Disposition

• The order of the district court is reversed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael D. Bustamante, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals concluded that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. This conclusion was based on the agreement requiring arbitration for the majority of claims that would be brought by the patient while excluding disputes almost exclusively pursued by the nursing home. The court found that the exception language, while facially neutral, is meaningless in practice, as it unreasonably benefits the nursing home over the patient, establishing substantive unconscionability (paras 3-8).