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 wrongful death action filed by the personal representative of the decedent's estate against the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico and several healthcare entities. The initial complaint alleged negligence, wrongful death, and medical malpractice. The case was dismissed for improper venue, and a stipulated order allowed for refiling within twenty-one days, which the plaintiff failed to meet, refiling instead seven months later (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- First Judicial District Court, October 2021: Dismissed the case with prejudice for improper venue, allowing a twenty-one-day period for refiling in the correct venue (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the second dismissal was improper, claiming the statutes of limitation were tolled during the pendency of the first action, the dismissal for improper venue was not preclusive, and the discovery rule applied under the Tort Claims Act (para 1).
- Appellees: Contended that the twenty-one-day refiling deadline was enforceable and that the plaintiff failed to provide authority to suggest otherwise (para 5).
Legal Issues
- Whether the stipulated twenty-one-day refiling deadline was enforceable.
- Whether the statutes of limitation were tolled during the pendency of the first action.
- Whether the discovery rule applies to the claims under the Tort Claims Act.
Disposition
- The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims as time-barred (para 8).
Reasons
Per Ives, Judge (Hanisee and Medina, JJ. concurring):
The court found that the stipulated twenty-one-day refiling deadline was enforceable, as parties have the right to enter into stipulations that are binding unless shown to be unreasonable or against public policy. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for disregarding the stipulated order or to provide authority suggesting the deadline was unreasonable or against public policy. The court emphasized that stipulations are encouraged to simplify litigation and save time and costs (paras 5-7).