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 alleged that she was served a drink containing glass pieces at a nightclub on April 20, 1990, resulting in personal injury. At the time of the incident, the nightclub was owned by the Defendant, Char-Li-Jon, Inc. (CLJ). The Plaintiff initially sued a different entity, Caravan East Nite Club, Inc., which had sold its interest in the nightclub in 1972. The Plaintiff later amended her complaint to include CLJ and added claims for breach of warranty (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against CLJ, holding that the negligence and strict liability claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court also dismissed the warranty claims (headnotes, paras 1, 13).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the amended complaint against CLJ should "relate back" to the original filing date under Rule 15, as the claims arose from the same occurrence. Further contended that the warranty claims were governed by the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (paras 6-7, 9).
• Defendant-Appellee: Asserted that the negligence and strict liability claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Argued that the warranty claims were also time-barred, as the case was fundamentally a personal injury action subject to the same three-year limitation period (paras 4-5, 9-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's negligence and strict liability claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
• Whether the Plaintiff's amended complaint against CLJ could "relate back" to the original filing date under Rule 15.
• Whether the Plaintiff's warranty claims were governed by the four-year statute of limitations under the UCC (paras 4, 6, 9).

Disposition

• The dismissal of the negligence and strict liability claims was affirmed.
• The dismissal of the warranty claims was reversed, and the district court was directed to reinstate those claims (para 13).

Reasons

Per Black J. (Minzner C.J. and Hartz J. concurring):

• Negligence and Strict Liability Claims: The court held that these claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations under NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-8. The Plaintiff failed to name or serve CLJ as a defendant within the statutory period. The court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the amended complaint "related back" to the original filing date, as CLJ did not receive notice of the action within the limitations period and had no "identity of interest" with the originally named defendants (paras 4-8).

• Warranty Claims: The court determined that the warranty claims were governed by the four-year statute of limitations under NMSA 1978, Section 55-2-725 of the UCC. The UCC explicitly applies to the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises, and the Plaintiff's warranty claims were filed within the four-year period. The court emphasized that the UCC's specific limitation period for sales transactions supersedes the general personal injury statute of limitations (paras 9-12).

• Conclusion: The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and strict liability claims but reversed the dismissal of the warranty claims, directing the district court to reinstate them (paras 13-14).