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

• Running Bear Rescue, Inc., doing business as Rocky Mountain EMS, entered into a four-year ambulance service contract with the City of Las Vegas in April 2002. According to the contract, the City agreed to pay Running Bear increasing annual amounts over the contract period. However, in April 2004, the City did not increase its payments as stipulated for the third year of the contract, instead continuing to pay $200,000 annually under what it claimed was a month-to-month contract until August 2008. Running Bear brought an action for breach of contract against the City in August 2008.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Miguel County, Abigail Aragon, District Judge: Dismissed Running Bear's complaint against the City on statute of limitation grounds.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Running Bear): Argued that the City did not adequately or timely raise its affirmative statute of limitations defense. Contended that even if the City had raised the defense, the cause of action was revived by partial payments made by the City.
• Defendant-Appellee (City of Las Vegas): Asserted that Running Bear’s claims were barred by governmental immunity and later amended its answer to include waiver, estoppel, and laches. Claimed that Running Bear's cause of action accrued in April 2004 and was barred by a two-year statute of limitations for actions against governmental entities.

Legal Issues

• Whether the City adequately raised the statute of limitations defense.
• Whether the City's monthly payments to Running Bear were sufficient to revive the cause of action under Section 37-1-16, thus lifting the statute of limitations bar.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Running Bear’s claims against the City.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the City had adequately raised its statute of limitations defense despite not affirmatively pleading it in its responsive pleadings. The Court assumed the limitation period in Section 37-1-24 was not jurisdictional but concluded that the district court did not err in considering the City’s defense based on the adequacy of the City’s responsive pleadings.
  The Court determined that the City’s monthly payments to Running Bear did not revive the cause of action under Section 37-1-16. The payments did not acknowledge an unpaid debt nor made a new written promise to pay, which are necessary for revival of the cause of action.
  The Court treated the district court’s action as granting summary judgment in favor of the City after hearing argument on the merits, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
  The Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Running Bear’s claims, holding that the City did not waive its statute of limitations defense and that the City’s payments were insufficient to revive Running Bear’s cause of action under Section 37-1-16.