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 patient at Defendants' healthcare facility, alleges she was sexually assaulted by Defendant Raul Burgos on March 16, 2005, while in a reduced state of consciousness due to medical treatments. She initially filed a complaint in 2008, which was dismissed for failure to prosecute. A subsequent 2010 complaint was dismissed due to the statute of limitations expiring. The Plaintiff was aware of the assault by September 2005 when she informed her daughter.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Judge: Dismissed the 2008 Complaint for failure to prosecute.
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Dismissed the 2010 Complaint due to the statute of limitations expiring.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to Defendants' fraudulent actions preventing her from discovering the identity of her assailant until after the limitations period had expired.
• Defendants: Contended that the Plaintiff was aware of the assault by September 2005, which started the statute of limitations period, and that there was no material issue of fact regarding when the Plaintiff knew of the injury.

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff's claims should be tolled due to Defendants' alleged fraudulent actions.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim on the basis of the statute of limitations.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Defendants based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, denying Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the order of dismissal and to file a first amended complaint, and an order of clarification.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Roderick T. Kennedy, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring), the Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff was aware of the assault by September 2005, which was sufficient to start the statute of limitations period. The court held that the discovery rule applies when the plaintiff discovers or with reasonable diligence should have discovered that a claim exists, and in this case, the Plaintiff had sufficient knowledge by September 2005. The court also noted that the Plaintiff's failure to serve Defendants with the 2008 complaint or seek discovery did not support a tolling of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the Plaintiff's argument that the district court erred in dismissing her breach of contract claim based on the statute of limitations, as all alleged damages from the breach were based on personal injuries from the alleged assault, thus applying the three-year limitations period for personal injury claims.