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 discovered that the gravesite she had purchased for burial next to her deceased husband was already occupied. The cemetery corrected this error by disinterring the body from the plot. Despite the correction, the Plaintiff intended to proceed with her burial plans but sued the cemetery for breach of contract among other claims.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant cemetery breached the contract by having another body in the purchased plot and claimed damages for economic loss and severe emotional distress.
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the Plaintiff could not demonstrate any economic loss or severe emotional distress warranting damages. They supported their argument with affidavits and deposition excerpts showing the plot was available for the Plaintiff upon her death and that she intended to be buried there.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding there was no breach of contract because the Plaintiff failed to present evidence of damages.
• Whether the Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient evidence of severe emotional distress to defeat the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on all of the Plaintiff's claims.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Roderick T. Kennedy with Judges Celia Foy Castillo and Michael E. Vigil concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Breach of Contract: The Court clarified that the district court did not decide on the presence of a breach of contract but focused on the Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate damages. The Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant did not show a lack of economic loss was deemed unpreserved for appeal. The Court found that affidavits and deposition excerpts attached to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment constituted evidence against the Plaintiff's claim of economic harm (MIO 3).
  Severe Emotional Distress: The Court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the Plaintiff's claim of feeling "terrible" was insufficient to establish the severe emotional distress necessary to support her claims. The Court also noted that the district court made no findings about the Plaintiff's demeanor or credibility as it was a motion for summary judgment, not a trial (MIO 4-6).
  The Court affirmed the summary judgment, indicating that the Plaintiff's arguments on appeal did not persuade them to overturn the district court's decision.