If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney: S. Carolyn Ramos and Brett E. Eaton

Description: Albuquerque, New Mexico personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a negligence theory
claiming to have suffered more than $75,000 in injuries and/or damages as a direct result of an accident.



Plaintiffs filed a civil action against Defendants in the Eighth Judicial District Court, County of Taos, New Mexico. Doc. 1 ¶ 1. On March 18, 2022, Defendant KS Majha and Singh filed a Notice of Removal in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico based on provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Doc. 1. On March 24, 2022, Mr. Singh filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b). Doc. 5. Mr. Singh in his motion asserted that Ms. Rani was not an employee of KS Majha. Doc. 5 at 6. Considering the new information and to potentially cure the allege defect, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend Complaint on April 11, 2022, and filed a response in opposition to Defendant Singh's motion on April 21, 2022. Doc. 8; Doc. 18. Defendant Singh filed a reply to Plaintiffs' response on May 9, 2022. Doc. 23. Defendant KS Majha filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion on April 25, 2022, and Plaintiffs filed a reply to Defendant KS Majha's response on May 9, 2022. Doc. 19; Doc. 24.


When jurisdiction is contested, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375 F.3d 1070, 1074 (10th Cir. 2004); AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distribution Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054, 1056 (10th Cir. 2008). At this stage, where a pre-trial motion to dismiss is considered by a court without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff “need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the motion.” See AST Sports, 514 F.3d at 1057. The plaintiff can satisfy this burden by “demonstrating, via affidavit or other written materials, facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. (quoting OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998)). This showing is “light.” See Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995).



This case is brought to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, this Court is required to apply New Mexico law. See Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc., 843 F.2d 406, 407 (10th Cir. 1988); James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC, 658 F.3d 1207, 1216-17 (10th Cir. 2011) (“In a federal court diversity case, except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state.”).

“Personal jurisdiction is established by the laws of the forum state and must comport with constitutional due process.” Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Thyssen Min. Const. of Canada, Ltd., 703 F.3d 488, 492 (10th Cir. 2012). New Mexico's long-arm statute “extends the jurisdictional reach of New Mexico courts as far as constitutionally permissible.” See Tercero v. Roman Cath. Diocese of Norwich, 2002-NMSC-018, ¶ 6, 132 N.M. 312, 316, 48 P.3d 50, 54; Fireman's Fund, 703 F.3d at 492-93. The personal jurisdiction analysis, therefore, concerns only whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction offends due process.

Outcome: The Court finds that Plaintiffs may amend their complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)1, and as such, Defendant KS Majha has no basis to challenge the futility of the amendments. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Singh. Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing establishing the requisite minimum contacts, and Defendant Singh has not made a compelling case that jurisdiction over his person would be unreasonable.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint attached to their motion within seven (7) days of the entry of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after the amended complaint is filed, Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint as set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3).
Spak v. Riturani (D. N.M. 2022)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: