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 case involves a dispute over an arbitration agreement related to the care of Cordelia Abram, deceased, by Paloma Blanca Health and Rehabilitation, L.L.C., and other associated defendants. The plaintiff, Mae Rose Lopez, representing the wrongful death estate, challenged the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, which required arbitration of all claims except those of "collections or discharge of residents."

Procedural History

• Abram v. Paloma Blanca Health Care Assocs., L.L.C., No. 31,850, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. June 17, 2013): The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable.
• Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, L.L.C., 2013-NMSC-032 (Strausberg II): The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a related case and remanded for consideration in light of its decision.
• Abram, No. 34,249, order (N.M. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25, 2013): The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the present case and remanded for consideration in light of Strausberg II.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it excluded from arbitration the claims most likely to be brought by the health care facility while requiring arbitration of the claims most likely to be brought by residents.
• Defendants-Appellants: Contended that the district court and the Court of Appeals implicitly relied on Strausberg I, which was reversed by the Supreme Court in Strausberg II. They argued for the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and requested a remand to present evidence concerning the exception in the arbitration agreement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitration agreement, which required arbitration of all claims except those of "collections or discharge of residents," is substantively unconscionable.
• Whether the party asserting unconscionability as an affirmative defense has the burden of proving that the contract should not be enforced based on unconscionability.

Disposition

• The decision of the district court denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Kennedy, C.J., and Vigil, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found that the Supreme Court's decision in Strausberg II did not impact the present case because Strausberg I was not a factor in the decision of either the district court or the Court of Appeals (paras 3-4).
  The Court of Appeals had previously affirmed the district court's finding of substantive unconscionability based on the exclusion of certain claims from arbitration, relying on Supreme Court cases Rivera and Cordova and other relevant appellate decisions (para 5).
  The Court rejected Defendants' arguments that the district court and the Court of Appeals implicitly relied on Strausberg I, stating that the district court's decision was based on the language of the arbitration agreement and the standards of Cordova and Rivera (paras 6-8).
  The Court declined Defendants' request to remand for an evidentiary hearing, distinguishing the present case from Bargman based on the specific requests made by Defendants and the legal context at the time of the district court's decision (para 9).