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

• Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against Defendants for selling used cars without disclosing their accident history, alleging violations of New Mexico common law and various statutes. Defendants attempted to compel arbitration based on an Agreement signed by Plaintiffs and class members, which included an arbitration clause. The district court found Defendants waived their right to arbitration due to their actions throughout the litigation process (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court, May 4, 2011: Denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint (para 2).
• District Court, February 20, 2012: Granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment on named Plaintiffs' claims (para 3).
• District Court, September 24, 2013: Granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action (para 4).
• District Court, February 19, 2014: Denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration against class members (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that Plaintiffs and all absent members of the class had signed an Agreement containing an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be decided by arbitration (para 5).
• Plaintiffs: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration against absent class members by their actions throughout the litigation process (para 7).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of Defendants' motion to compel arbitration against absent class members was affirmed (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, held that Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration against absent class members. This conclusion was based on Defendants' failure to assert their arbitration rights in a timely manner, their engagement in extensive judicial activity without mentioning arbitration, and the substantial prejudice that compelling arbitration at a late stage would cause to Plaintiffs. The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings that Defendants acted inconsistently with any intent to enforce their right to arbitration and had thereby waived such right (paras 8-24).