Pacifica Rosemont LLC v. Buffer
1:24-cv-00093
| D.N.M. | Jun 4, 2024Background
- The case arises from a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit related to the death of Jean Hillyer Smith, who resided at Pacifica Senior Living Santa Fe.
- Ms. Smith, suffering from various medical issues, fell while at the facility and later died from her injuries.
- Her estate, represented by Laurie Buffer, sued the facility and associated companies in state court, alleging improper care.
- Plaintiffs (Pacifica entities) filed in federal court to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed as part of Ms. Smith's admission process.
- Ms. Buffer, holding a power of attorney, signed the arbitration agreement when arranging Ms. Smith's residency at the facility.
- The dispute centers on the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement, federal jurisdiction, and whether any procedural bars or unconscionability principles prevent enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the Arbitration Agreement | Agreement is authentic and properly signed by Buffer | Document is invalid due to mispagination/accuracy | Valid agreement; signature is uncontested |
| Buffer’s Authority via Power of Attorney | Power of attorney granted broad authority, including arbitration | Buffer lacked authority to bind Smith to arbitration | Buffer had authority per NM law and UPOAA |
| Third-party Beneficiary Status of Plaintiffs | Nonsignatory entities entitled to enforce as beneficiaries | Only signatory bound; others are not beneficiaries | Entities are intended beneficiaries, so bound |
| FAA Interstate Commerce Requirement | Out-of-state purchases suffice for FAA jurisdiction | Not enough to show interstate commerce | Sufficient under federal law |
| Necessity of Additional Parties (Anne Licon-Kemper) | Not necessary/indispensable for federal relief | Must be joined, destroying diversity jurisdiction | Not necessary or indispensable per Rule 19 |
| Unconscionability of Arbitration Agreement | State law unconscionability rule is preempted by federal law | Agreement is substantively unconscionable under NM law | Not unconscionable, Patton controls |
| Need for Discovery or Evidentiary Hearing | No material dispute about signatures or agreement | Needed due to questions around validity | Not warranted; no genuine factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (presumption in favor of arbitrability under federal law)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (FAA allows piecemeal resolution to enforce arbitration agreements)
- Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52 (interpreting "involving commerce" broadly under FAA)
- THI of N.M. at Hobbs Center, LLC v. Patton, 741 F.3d 1162 (FAA preempts state-law unconscionability rules disfavoring arbitration)