Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-28-2022
Case Style:
Jane Doe v. WW Healthcare, LLC, d/b/a Princeton Place, et al.
Case Number: A-1-CA-39174
Judge: Megan P. Duffy
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico on appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Jo Beth Drake
Description: Santa Fe, New Mexico personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on negligence theories claiming to have been injured and/or damaged as a direct result of being sexually assaulted by a coworker.
{¶1} Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a tort action against her former employer and a former coworker alleging that the coworker sexually assaulted her at work. After filing a motion to transfer venue, Defendant WW Healthcare, LLC, d/b/a Princeton Place, moved to compel arbitration. Defendants OnPointe Business Services, LLC, and Two P Management, LLC joined the motion to transfer venue and then filed their own motion to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion to transfer venue and the motions to compel arbitration. Defendants appeal only the court's ruling on the motions to compel arbitration.
BACKGROUND
{¶2} Plaintiff filed her complaint on January 13, 2020, naming Defendants mentioned above along with Desire Kasi, her alleged assailant.[1] Fifteen days later, Plaintiff served her first discovery requests on WW Healthcare. On February 27, 2020, WW Healthcare exercised a peremptory excusal of the assigned district judge, filed a motion to transfer venue, and answered Plaintiff's complaint, raising affirmative defenses including the right to submit the case to arbitration. WW Healthcare answered discovery on March 5. It then filed its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff during her hiring
2
orientation on March 9. OnPointe and Two P joined the motion to transfer venue on April 16 and filed their own motion to compel arbitration five days later.
{¶3} The district court held a motions hearing on June 11, 2020. The court first denied the motion to transfer venue, noting that no such procedure exists under New Mexico law. The parties then presented argument on the motions to compel arbitration that centered entirely on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement as applied to Plaintiff's claims. But instead of ruling on these substantive disputes, the court denied Defendants' motions to compel arbitration for two reasons. First, the court ruled that OnPointe and Two P were not signatories to the agreement, and thus could not compel arbitration under New Mexico precedents. Second, WW Healthcare waived its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement by filing its motion to change venue, which invoked the discretion of the district court before the filing of its motion to compel arbitration. Notably, the district court expressly declined to rule on the substantive arguments addressing the scope and enforceability of the arbitration agreement. The district court then issued written orders denying Defendants' motions. Defendants appeal the denial of their motions to compel arbitration under NMSA 1978, Section 44-7A-29(a)(1) (2001).
Doe v. WW Healthcare, LLC (N.M. App. 2022)
Outcome: "The district court's denial of Defendants' motions to compel arbitration is affirmed.
{¶12} IT IS SO ORDERED." Doe v. WW Healthcare, LLC (N.M. App. 2022)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: