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

• After the death of a nursing home resident who had been attacked by another resident, the deceased's estate filed a complaint against the nursing home and its administrators. The complaint alleged negligence, misrepresentation, and a violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, focusing on the terms of the admission contract's arbitration agreement (para 3).

Procedural History

• Griego v. St. John Healthcare & Rehab. Ctr., L.L.C., No. 31,777, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2013): The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on the substantive unconscionability of the arbitration agreement.
• Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC, 2013-NMSC-032, 304 P.3d 409 (Strausberg II): The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in Strausberg I, clarifying the burden of proof regarding unconscionability in arbitration agreements and remanded the present case for further consideration in light of its opinion.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Argued that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable, focusing on its terms that required arbitration of all disputes except those pertaining to collections or discharges of residents (para 5).
• Defendants-Appellants: Sought to dismiss or stay litigation and compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement included in the admission contract (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitration agreement is void for substantive unconscionability as a matter of law in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Strausberg II (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed its previous ruling in Griego I, holding that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion (para 11).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, the Court of Appeals found that the Supreme Court's decision in Strausberg II, which clarified the burden of proof regarding unconscionability, did not alter the conclusion that the arbitration agreement in question is substantively unconscionable. The Court noted that the litigation in the district court on the issue of unconscionability occurred with the understanding that Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The Court's analysis remained unchanged because the parties had litigated under the correct burden of proof, and the evidence supported the finding of substantive unconscionability (paras 7-10).