Youngers v. Management & Training Company
1:20-cv-00465
| D.N.M. | Apr 19, 2021Background:
- Roxsana Hernandez, a Honduran asylum seeker with HIV, was transported through multiple facilities in May 2018; LaSalle Defendants took custody at San Luis Regional Detention Center (Arizona) and later moved her to a Mesa, AZ, airport before she was ultimately transported to New Mexico hospitals, where she died on May 25, 2018.
- Plaintiff (the personal representative) filed a First Amended Complaint on August 13, 2020 alleging claims under the Rehabilitation Act §504 and various negligence and wrongful-death-based tort claims against LaSalle entities and others.
- LaSalle Corrections West and LaSalle Management moved to dismiss Counts I, II, VII, VIII, IX as time-barred under Arizona’s two-year personal-injury statute; LaSalle Transport initially raised Rule 4 service issues but later abandoned some service challenges.
- LaSalle Defendants also sought dismissal of negligence-per-se theory based on policies/procedures, dismissal of punitive damages under §504, and elimination of non-economic damages and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress relief under Arizona law.
- The Court (1) treated statutes of limitation as procedural under New Mexico choice-of-law rules and found the claims timely under New Mexico’s three-year rule, (2) applied Arizona substantive tort law (via a public-policy departure from lex loci delicti), and (3) dismissed punitive damages under §504 and barred non-economic damages and Count IX under Arizona law.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs (NM 3 yrs v. AZ 2 yrs)? | New Mexico's 3-year wrongful-death/personal-injury statute applies, so claims are timely. | Arizona's 2-year personal-injury statute applies and bars the claims. | Court: statutes of limitation are procedural under NM choice-of-law; NM's 3-year period governs. Claims not time-barred. |
| Which state's substantive tort law governs availability of damages (place-of-wrong)? | The place of death (New Mexico) is where the harm occurred, so NM substantive law should apply. | Arizona law should govern because LaSalle's alleged wrongful conduct occurred in Arizona. | Court: departs from mechanical lex loci delicti on public-policy grounds; Arizona substantive law governs as Arizona has the greater interest. |
| Recoverability of non-economic damages (pain & suffering / IIED) | Plaintiff seeks non-economic damages and IIED recovery. | Arizona law bars pain-and-suffering/non-economic wrongful-death damages and thus IIED recovery. | Court: Arizona law bars non-economic damages in wrongful-death context; dismisses non-economic damages for Counts II, VII, VIII and dismisses Count IX in full. |
| Punitive damages under Rehabilitation Act §504 | Plaintiff sought punitive damages under §504. | Defendants argued punitive damages not allowed under §504. | Court: Plaintiff concedes Barnes v. Gorman controls; punitive damages under §504 are unavailable—request dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. State, 894 P.2d 386 (N.M. 1995) (public-policy exception to lex loci delicti where duties of in-state actors are at issue)
- Estate of Gilmore v. Gilmore, 946 P.2d 1130 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (presumption favoring place-of-wrong rule tempered by competing policy interests)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (punitive damages not recoverable under the Rehabilitation Act §504)
- Baker v. Board of Regents of the State of Kansas, 991 F.2d 628 (10th Cir. 1993) (state statute of limitations applies to §504 claims)
- Nez v. Forney, 783 P.2d 471 (N.M. 1989) (statutes of limitation are procedural for choice-of-law purposes)