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

• A group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Bill E. Hooten and several other defendants related to unspecified grievances. Over the course of the litigation, Hooten engaged in various judicial processes, including filing a motion to dismiss and conducting discovery. Subsequently, Hooten attempted to compel arbitration, arguing that the claims against him should be resolved through arbitration rather than court proceedings. The district court denied Hooten's motion, leading to his appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Valerie A. Huling, District Judge: Denied Hooten's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant (Hooten): Argued that the district court erred by not determining whether it or the arbitrator had the authority to decide on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, which contained a delegation clause. Contended that the district court's order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims against other defendants also encompassed Plaintiffs' claims against him. Asserted that he could not waive his right to arbitrate where other entities successfully invoked their right to arbitrate. Claimed the district court erred in determining he waived his right to arbitration (paras 2, 4).
• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Their specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that they opposed Hooten's motion to compel arbitration and argued that Hooten had waived his right to arbitration by engaging in litigation activities (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court or the arbitrator had the authority to decide on the enforceability of the arbitration agreement containing a delegation clause.
• Whether the district court's order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims against other defendants also encompassed Plaintiffs' claims against Hooten.
• Whether Hooten could waive his right to arbitrate where other entities successfully invoked their right to arbitrate.
• Whether Hooten waived his right to arbitration by his actions during the litigation process.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision denying Hooten's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring):
  The court found that Hooten did not address the proposed disposition regarding two of his issues, thereby deeming them abandoned (para 3). Regarding the delegation clause, the court noted that Hooten failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by not invoking a ruling from the district court on this matter and did not challenge the proposed disposition that he failed to preserve the delegation clause issue (paras 4-5). The court was not convinced that the delegation clause divested the district court of subject matter jurisdiction, stating that a delegation clause, like an arbitration clause, is subject to waiver (para 7).
  The court concluded that Hooten extensively participated in litigation over two years and eight months, which constituted a waiver of his right to compel arbitration. This conclusion was based on Hooten's actions, such as filing a substantive motion and engaging in discovery, which indicated a course of conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The court also found that Plaintiffs were prejudiced by Hooten's delay in asserting his intention to arbitrate, as they had engaged in trial preparations under the assumption that the case would be litigated in court (paras 8-15).