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

• After shopping at the San Isidro Plaza in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Plaintiff alleges her purse was stolen from her car. Subsequently, the thief struck her with a different vehicle while fleeing. Plaintiff sued Defendant Columbus, the shopping center owner, for negligence, claiming a non-delegable duty to ensure the premises were safe, including protection from third-party criminal acts. Plaintiff also sued Defendant Chavez Security, Inc. (CSI), arguing that by contracting with CSI to provide security, CSI had a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the parking lot safe for visitors (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendant CSI owed a duty of care independent of its contract with Defendant Columbus, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, and as an intended third-party beneficiary of the security services agreement. Plaintiff also contended that summary judgment was premature as discovery was incomplete, preventing a substantive response to Defendant CSI's motion (paras 3, 5).
• Defendant CSI: Contended it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care as there was no special relationship with Plaintiff. Argued for summary judgment on this basis, asserting that the duty of care was not established outside of the contractual agreement with Defendant Columbus (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendant CSI owed Plaintiff a duty of care independent of its contractual agreement with Defendant Columbus, either under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A or as an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment before allowing Plaintiff to complete discovery (paras 1, 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting Defendant CSI's motion for summary judgment (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Henderson, J., with Bogardus, J., and Wray, J., concurring, found:
  The district court did consider Plaintiff's alternative theories of duty (independent of the contract and as a third-party beneficiary) and rejected them by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant CSI. The court's decision was based on the principle that a ruling can be implied by entry of final judgment or by an order inconsistent with the granting of the relief sought (paras 4-6).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff's request for a continuance to conduct additional discovery under Rule 1-056(F). The Court of Appeals reasoned that the additional discovery sought by Plaintiff related to the element of breach, not duty, and the determination of duty is a matter of law not influenced by factual evidence. Thus, additional discovery would not have benefited Plaintiff's position (paras 7-10).
  Plaintiff's argument that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing a response to the summary judgment on the merits was not preserved for review. The Court noted that Plaintiff did not adequately pursue or develop this issue at the hearing on the motion, thus failing to invoke a ruling by the district court on this matter (para 12).