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 original plaintiff, Ray Flores (Decedent), filed a complaint for personal injuries after a chair he was sitting in at an event at Popejoy Hall collapsed in December 2016, causing him injuries. The Decedent died on July 2, 2019, after the complaint was filed but before the case was resolved. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice due to a failure to timely file a motion to substitute a proper party after the Decedent's death, in accordance with Rule 1-025(A) NMRA (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Dismissed the case without prejudice due to inactivity for 180 days or more. The dismissal was followed by a motion to reinstate the case filed by Decedent’s counsel, noting Decedent's death and the intention to appoint Decedent’s wife as the representative to pursue the case (para 2).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted the motion for reinstatement and sanctioned Decedent’s counsel for failure to properly serve the motion and conduct thereafter (para 4).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to substitute a party in place of Decedent within the required ninety days after Decedent's death was suggested on the record (para 5-7).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied a motion to reconsider the dismissal, which was filed by Decedent’s counsel after the court's written order of dismissal (para 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Decedent's Counsel: Argued that the process of appointing Decedent’s wife as the personal representative was underway and intended to pursue the case. Later filed a motion to substitute the personal representative as a party, arguing that the filing of the petition to appoint a personal representative was sufficient to meet the ninety-day requirement for substitution (paras 2-3, 6).
• Defendants: Opposed the motion for reinstatement, arguing that Decedent’s counsel had no authority to file the motion after Decedent's death and that until an estate was created, there was no entity to serve with the notice of death or to seek reinstatement. They also moved to dismiss the action for failure to substitute a party within ninety days after Decedent's death was suggested on the record (paras 3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to timely file a motion to substitute a proper party after the Decedent's death.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider the dismissal.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to timely substitute a proper party after the Decedent's death was affirmed (para 21).

Reasons

• Bustamante, J., sitting by designation, with Ives, J., and Wray, J., concurring, held that the district court correctly interpreted and applied Rule 1-025(A)(1) regarding the substitution of parties following the death of a party. The court found no error in the district court's decision to dismiss the case due to the failure to file a motion to substitute within the ninety-day limit after the suggestion of death was made on the record. The court also found that Decedent’s counsel's procedural and legal errors did not warrant an alteration of the original decision to dismiss, affirming that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider (paras 12-20).