Green v. Clovis Healthcare & Rehab. Ctr.

1

BARRY GREEN, ESQ., as Personal Representative of the WRONGFUL DEATH ESTATE URAH LEE HODGE, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLOVIS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC d/b/a CLOVIS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER a/k/a CLOVIS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER LLC and CLOVIS HC AND REHAB CENTER; SUMMIT CARE, LLC; SUMMIT CARE PARENT, LLC; FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT, LLC; GEN OPERATIONS I, LLC; GEN OPERATIONS, II, LLC; GENESIS HEALTHCARE, INC.; GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC; SKILLED HEALTHCARE, LLC; SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC.; SUNDANCE REHABILITATION HOLDCO, INC.; and GENESIS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC, Defendants-Appellants.

No. A-1-CA-40145

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

August 1, 2023

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY Kathleen McGarry Ellenwood, District Court Judge.

Pitman, Kalkhoff, Sicula & Dentice, SC Jeffrey A. Pitman Benjamin E. Reyes Santa Fe, NM for Appellee.

Rodey Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Jocelyn Drennan Denise Chanez Patrick Coronel Albuquerque, NM for Appellants.

DECISION

J. MILES HANISEE, JUDGE.

{¶1} This matter is on appeal from the district court's order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in favor of Plaintiff, the personal representative of the wrongful death estate of Urah Hodge. Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration on grounds of substantive unconscionability because the court lacked the authority to make threshold arbitrability determinations.

{¶2} We have carefully reviewed the briefs, applicable law, and arguments made by the parties. We have reviewed the entire record, including the district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration. This case presents nearly identical underlying claims, arbitration agreements, and arguments as our recently decided case Green v. Peak Medical Farmington, LLC, A-1-CA-40157, mem. op. (N.M Ct. App. July 13, 2023) (nonprecedential).^[1] Accordingly, we find that this case may be resolved under the same authority and rationale as Green.

{¶3} "Arbitration agreements are a species of contract, subject to the principles of New Mexico contract law." L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 18, 392 P.3d 194. "Contract interpretation is a matter of law that we review de novo." Rivera v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 2011-NMSC-033, ¶ 27, 150 N.M. 398, 259 P.3d 803.

{¶4} We conclude that the district court erred in denying the motion to compel under the same precedent, authority, and rationale explained in Green. As in Green this case presents an arbitration agreement that evidences a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate threshold issues, and the Hodge estate failed to raise a specific challenge to the delegation clause that renders the clause unenforceable. See Juarez v. THI of N.M. at Sunset Villa, LLC, 2022-NMCA-056, ¶ 22, 517 P.3d 918 ("Our inquiry, then, turns on two questions: (1) [W]as there a...