Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c atio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please s e e Ru le 1 2

- 4 0 5 N M RAf o r r e s tr ic ti o n s o nth e c it ati o no f unp u b li s h e d me mo r andum op ini on s. P lea se a lso no te that th is e le c tr on ic me mor and um o pin ion

may c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations f rom the officia l pa

per version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date

. 1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 GABRI EL BE CERRA, 3 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 4 v

. N O. 33, 758 5 ALLST ATE I NSURANCE COMPANY; 6 THE DUNSIRN AGENCY; LE E DUNSIRN; 7 JE NNIE B URRILL ; CATHY LANKFO RD; 8 STIF F, KEITH & GA RC IA, LLC ; A NN L. 9 KEITH, ESQ. ; R UGG E, ROS ALE S & AS SOC IATE S 10 P. C. ; D ALE R. RU GGE, ESQ. ; SIM ONE , R OBER TS, 11 & WEI SS, P.A.; STEPHE N M. SIMONE , ESQ.; 12 DAVID W. FRIZ Z ELL , ESQ.; MARI O SALAZ AR; 13 AN D N AR CISO GA RC IA JR ., ESQ. 14 D ef

en dants -Appe lle es . 15 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 16 N an G. N ash , D ist ri ctJu dg e 17 Ga briel Bece rra 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 Pr o S e Appe llant 20 Je nni e Burr ill 21 Ph oe ni x, AZ 22 Pro Se Appellee2

1 Mario Sa lazar 2 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 3 Pro Se Appellee 4 St iff , Keit h & Garci a, LLC 5 A nn L

. K ei th 6 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 7 fo r Appe lle e A nn L

. K ei th 8 Sim one, Roberts & W eiss, PA 9 St ep he n M

. S im one 10 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 11 fo r Appe lle es S te phe n M

. S im on & A lls ta te I nsur an ce Co m pany 12 MEM ORA ND UM OP INION 13 GAR CIA , Jud ge. 14 { 1} Pl ai nti ff

appe al s f ro m a j udgm en t en te re d in his favor f oll ow ing abe nc h tr ia l. 15 W e pr op os ed to a ff

irm , a nd P la int if

f ha s f ile d am oti on t o a m en d th e doc ke tin g 16 state m en t a s w el l a s am em or an dum in oppo sit ionto the pr op os ed af fi rm an ce . T he 17 m oti on t o a m en d ra is es no ne wiss ue s, but ins te ad pr es en ts a ddi tio na l f

ac ts and 1 8 ar g u m en ti n s up p o rt o f t h e i s s u es d i s cu s s ed i n t h e me m o ra n du m i n o p p o s i t i o n . We 19 therefo re c onstru e the m oti on t o a m en d a s asup ple m en t t o th e m em or an dum in 20 oppo sit ion

. H av ing care fu lly co nsi de re d th e inf orm at iona nd arg um en ts p re se nte d in 21 Pl ai nti ff

’ s pl ea din gs, w e ar e not

pe rs ua de d that Pl ai nti ff ha s de m onstrate d r ev er sib le 22 er ro r. W e the re fo re af

fi rm , fo r the re as ons dis cu sse d belo w as w el l as thos e se t out i n3

1 th e n ot ic e o f pr op os eddi sp os it io n. 2 { 2} Pl ai nti ff

c ont inu es to arg ue that A lls ta te vio la te d it s du ty to de fe nd h im

a ga ins t 3 the f ri vol ous law sui t f

iled ag ai ns t hi m

by Mari o S al az ar . A s w e poi nte d ou t i n th e 4 notice o f

p r op os e d di sp os i t i on , t he d i str i c tc ourta gr e e d w i t h P l a i nt i f f ; t he r e f or e, 5 Pl ai nti ff

pr ev ai le d onthi s is sue a nd al l of his a rg um en ts c onc er

nin g A lls ta te ’ s du ty 6 to de fen d a re u nn eces sa ry . 7 { 3} W e al so p oin te d ou t i n th e not ic e that the dis tr ic t c ourt aw ar de d dam ag es to 8 Plaintiff as r ecom

pense for Allstate’ s breach, and sugg ested that Plaintiff had failed 9 to s how h ow that da m ag es a w ar d w as ins uf fi ci en t. P la int if

f ha s no wa tte m

pte d to 10 de ta il his da m ag es by c la im ing that he suf

fe red gr ave e m oti ona l di str es s a s ar es ult 11 of All st at e’s in it ia l fai lu re to de fen d hi m ag ai ns t t he Sal azarlaws ui t. [Am en de d DS 12 16] H e state s th at

he ga ine d 60 pounds, suf

fe rs co nst an t pai n as a

r es ult of “ une ndi ng” 13 stres s, an d has s uf

fe re d hu m ili at ion , e m

barr as sm en t, los s of

e nj oym en t of

li fe , a nd 14 ot he r da m ag es . [Id

. ] In ess en ce , Pl ai ntiff asks this Cou rt to re- we igh th e evidence 15 pr es en te d to the tr ia l co urt an d de te rm ine that the tr ia l c ourt’ s aw ar d of ove r $17, 000 16 in d am ag es w as le ga lly ins uf fic ie nt . Th is w e m ay

not do. O n a ppe al , a n aw ar d of 17 da m ag es w ill not be re ve rs ed unl es s it w as ar es ult of pa ssi on, pr ej udi ce , or

apa lpa ble 18 erro r, or whe re the m eas ur e of da m ag es us edwa s e r r on eo us . H ic ks v . E lle r, 19 2012 -N MCA -061, ¶ 35, 280 P.3d 304

. In this case, the trial court found that Plaintiff4

1 pr es en te d li ttl e co nc re te e vid en ce of da m ag es , a nd m ost of the da m ag es c la im ed

by 2 Plaintiff on appeal ar e based on his su bje ctive claim s of em otion al distress r ather than 3 on concrete dem onstration s of harm such as m edical b ills. Given the subjective nature 4 of his da m ag es , w e ar e not in a po si tio n to sub sti tut e our j udgm en t f

or that of the 5 district court, who wa s present at trial, observed Plaintiff’ s testim ony , and determ ined 6 th e ex te nt to whi ch Pla in ti ff h adbe en ha rm edby A ll st at e’s act io ns . See Shado an v. 7 Ci ties of

G old Ca sin o , 201 0- N MC A -0 02 , ¶ 18, 147 N

. M. 444, 224 P. 3d 671 ( poi nti ng 8 out that appe llate co urts ar e not in a pos iti on t o e va luate the va lue of apla int if f’ s pa in 9 and suffering, and m ay not speculate as to what the am ount s m ight h ave been). 10 { 4} Pl ai nti ff

r ei te rate s hi s arg um en t tha t A lls ta te sho uld not ha ve be ena llo w ed

to 11 se ttl e the S al az ar

law sui t by

pay ing Sa la zar $750 0, be ca use the law sui t w as f

ri vol ous 12 and factually

baseless. A s part of this argum ent Plaintiff co n t en d s he had a “ legal 13 right” to prevent any

paym ent to S alazar

unless Salazar

could prov e that Plaintiff w as 14 lia ble f or S al azar’s inj ur ie s; h e al so c la im s A lls ta te c oul d no t e nte r int o se ttl em en t 15 negotiatio ns with Sa l az ar without first ob taining wr itten consent from Plaintiff. 16 [Am en de d DS 1 1] Pla in ti ff ci te s n o l eg al au th or it y fo r ei th er p ro po si ti on , and as we 17 dis cu sse d inthe not ic e of pr opos ed dis posi tio n w e do n ot b el ie ve e ith er pr opos iti on 18 is a c or re ct state m en t of

the law . I n th e noti ce w e disc uss ed the co nc ep t of a c la im f or 19 “ w ro ngf

ul s ettle m en t” of

ac la im by a n insur er , an d we poi nte d ou t tha t su chac la im5

1 ha s be en al low ed in onl y lim ite d ci rc um stanc es , w he re it ha s be en al lowed at all

. 2 E ve n a ssu m ing N ew Me xic o w oul d ad opt a ca use of ac tio n fo r w ro ngf

ul s ettle m en t, 3 those lim ited circum stances are not present in this case-- the settlem ent with Sala zar 4 did no t cost Plaintiff any m oney , a s Allstate paid the entire $7 500, and Plaintiff has 5 not sho w n that the se ttl em en t othe rw ise c au se d hi m to suf fe r an y le ga lly -c ogni za

ble 6 harm . W e the re fo re r ej ec t P la int if f’ s c onten ti on tha t he is en tit le d to som e ty pe of 7 re co ve ry

a ri sin g fromA lls ta te ’ s se ttl em en t of the S al az ar

law sui t, f

or the r ea sons 8 state d inthe not ic e of

pr opos ed dis posi tio n a s w el l a s th is o pin ion

. 9 { 5} Pl ai nti ff

a lso c ont inu es to ar gue that the A lls ta te a tto rn ey appoi nte d to 10 re pr es en t hi m

in the S al az ar

law sui t ha d ac onf

lic t of interes t an d c onsp ir ed

w ith 11 Allstate to violate Plaintiff’ s rights, and that he shou ld have been allowed to have a 12 differe nt attorney represe nt him

. [A m ended D S 12-15] T hese argum ents are pre m ised 13 on P la int if

f’ s bel ie f tha t he sho uld

ha ve be ena llo w ed

to pr ev en t any

paym en t of 14 m oney t o Salazar in settlem ent of the Salaz ar law suit; as we have discussed above, 15 that b el i ef do es not com port with the law. The botto mline is that the Allstate16 ap poi nte d a tto rn ey

r ep re se nted Pl ai nti ff

in suc h af

as hio n th at

P la int if f inc ur re d no 17 lia bil ity to Sa la zar an d w as not

r equir ed to ex pe nd any of his ow n f unds to pay

f or the 18 se ttl em en t. H e the re fo re c an not sho w that he suf

fe re d any c om pe nsa ble da m ag e as a 1 9 re s u l to f h i s re p re s en t at i o n b y t h e at t o rn ey ch o s en b y Al l s t at e. Pu t s i m p l y, Pl ai n t i ff

’s6

1 outrage at the fac t that Sal azar wa s paid $75 00 byAllstate, for w hat Plaintiff 2 co nsi de rs to be af

ri vol ous cl ai m , doe s no t gi ve r ise to an y le ga lly -r ec ogni ze d c au se 3 of action against either Allstate or the attorney hired by Allstate to re present Plaintiff. 4 { 6} Plaintiff ra ises two n ew argum ents concerning the settlem ent. He contend s that 5 the se ttl em en t i nc lud ed langua ge ind ic at ing that ne ith er party a dm itt ed liab ility f or 6 the alleged incident that led to the settlem ent, and that this language som ehow aided 7 All st at e in th e dut y -to -d efen d l it ig at io n b etween All st at e an d P la in ti ff. [Am en de d DS 8 13] H e a lso a rg ue s th at

the se ttl em en t c onc ea le d A lls ta te ’ s w ro ngdo ing in its handl ing 9 of th e d efen se of S al azar ’s cla im ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff

. [Id

. 13- 14] P lain tiff

doe s no t 10 explain either of these argum ents f urther, and cites no specific facts or law in support 11 of e ith er one . W e ar e una

ble to pe rc ei ve how the non- adm iss ion -o f- lia bil ity langua ge 12 ha d any i m

pa ct on the li tig at ionbe tw ee n A lls ta te a nd P la int if f, a nd i n any

e ve nt 13 Plaintiff prevailed in that litigatio n and therefore suffere d no har m from the language. 14 Furthe rm or e, we do n ot s ee howthe se ttl em en t c oul d c onc ea l any w ro ngdo ing by 15 A lls ta te in handl ing the de fe nse of Sa la zar’ s cla im a ga ins t P la int if

f, a nd w e poi nt o ut 1 6 o n ce ag ai n t h at ev en i f s u ch wr o n g d o i n g o cc u rr ed , t h e e n dre s u l to f A l l s t at e’s 17 re pr es en ta tio n of

P la int if f w as that P la int if

f ow ed S al az ar no m one y

or c om pe nsa tio n 18 of a ny kin d. P la int if

f sim ply ha s fa ile d to de m onstrate that he w as harm ed in an y 19 legally -rec ogni zed m anner by the settlem ent Allstate enter ed int o wi t h Salaz ar. In7

1 sum , e ven if Ne w Me xico were t o recognize a c laim for w rongful settlem ent by an 2 ins ur an ce c om

pany , a n is sue w e ne ed

not de ci de , P la int if

f ha s faile d to sa tis fy

the 3 re qui re m en ts o f suc h ac la im by f ai lin g to de m onstrate that he suf fe re d c om pe nsa ble 4 harm a s a r es ult of the se ttl em en t. 5 { 7} Plaintiff contends that his discovery wa s im perm issib ly lim ited by

the special 6 m aster appointed bythe district court. T he special m aster r efused to allow Plaintiff 7 to c ondu ct

an ydis co ve ry

c onc er nin g m atte rs a ri sin g a ft er the da te on whic h th e 8 lit igatio n be tw ee n A lls ta te a nd P la int if f w as ini tiate d. [ RP V ol. 10, 404 1] G ive n th e 9 status of the litig ation at the tim e this m atter w as before the spec i al m as t er , her 10 decision, which wa s affir m ed by the district c ourt, wa s correc t. U nder the am ended 11 com plaint th at Plaintiff w as allowed to file a gainst A llstate, his claim s wer e lim ited 12 to Allstate’ s alleged breaches of contract for failing to inv estigate and defend Plaintiff 13 ag ai nst

the law sui t f

ile d by Sa la zar. [RP V ol. 9, 3856 -6 0] H ow ev er , by the tim e the 14 lit igatio n be tw ee n P la int if f an d A lls ta te w as ini tiate d, A lls ta te w as al re ady pr ovi din g 15 a de fe nse to the laws ui t un de r a r es er va tio n of r igh ts. [ RP V ol. 1, 369 , 376 , the 16 al le gatio n inA lls ta te ’ s c om pla int in int er ve nti on, a dm itt ed

in Pl ai nti ff

’ s answ er a nd 17 counterclaim ] Plaintiff’ s requested discovery concerning events occurring after that 18 da te w as a im ed

a t sh ow ing that A lls ta te w ro ngf ull y se ttl ed the S al az ar

law sui t; 19 however, such a claim wa s not raised in the am ended com plain t t h at Pl ai ntiff w as8

1 al low ed

to fi le , a nd a s w e ha ve dis cu sse d w as no t a via ble c la im in an y e ve nt. 2 Ther efore, Plaintiff w as allowed discovery tailored specifically t o the am ended 3 co m pla int he w as a llo w ed

to fi le

. W e hol d th at

he ha s no t dem onstrate d r ev er sib le 4 erro r in th e di st ric t cou rt’s di sc ov ery ru li ng . See D oe v. R om an C ath oli c D ioc es e of 5 Boise, Inc. , 199 6- N MC A -0 57, ¶ 21, 121 N

. M. 738 , 918 P

. 2d 1 7 ( statin g th at the party 6 ch al le ngi ng a li m it ationon d isc ove ry m ust sho wa n a

buse of dis cr et iona nd 7 pr ejud ic e). 8 { 8} Pl ai nti ff’s fi na l arg um en ts c onc er n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef

usa l t o a llo whim

to 9 am e n dh i s c o m

p l a i n tt o i n c l u d e am a l i c i o u s - ab u s e - o f

- p r o c e s s c l a i m

a g a i n s tN ar ci so 10 G ar ci a, Mr

. S al az ar ’ s a tto rn ey . T he dis tr ic t court r ef use d to do s o f

or tw o r ea sons : 11 first, Plaintiff’ s failure to o btain an expert who could testify that Mr. Garcia’ s conduct 12 during th e litigation wa s unreas o n ab l e; and second, the court’ s determ ination that 13 Pl ai nt iff

co ul d n ot sat is fy

th e el em en ts of acla im

form al ic io us ab us e o f pr oc es s. As 14 w e dis cu sse d inthe not ic e, thi s c as e is s om ewha t unusua l be ca use the m oti on t o a m en d 15 wa s not subm itted or d ecided s im ply on the pleadings ; instead, b oth parties subm itted 16 ev ide nti ar

y m at er ia l f

or the d is tri ct

c ourt’ s c onsi de ratio n. W e the re fo re pr opos ed to 17 tr eat the m oti on t o a m en d inthe sam e m an ne r as ac as e in whic h m atte rs out sid e the 18 fo ur c or ne rs of the c om pla int ar e co nsi de re d inde ci din g am oti on t o di sm iss – tha t i s, 19 t o decide the issue under a summ ary -j udgm ent standard rather than the norm al9

1 st an da rdth atis ap pl ie d wh en we rev ie w on ly the all e g a t io ns of t he co m pl ai nt

. See 2 Tunis v. Country Club Estates Hom eowners Ass’n, Inc. , 201 4- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 17, 318 3 P. 3d 713. Pl ai nti ff ha s no t ob j ec te d to our

pr opos al , a nd w e the re fo re c ont inu e to a ppl y 4 th atst an da rdof r ev ie w. 5 { 9} In our notice we poin ted out th at at the tim e th e Salazar lawsuit wa s filed, Mr

. 6 G ar ci a w as in poss es sio n of in fo rm at ionind ic at ing that P la int if f al le ge dly

a ide d, 7 abetted, and encourage d the indiv idual who allegedly battered Sa lazar . T hat 8 inform ation w as presented to the district court. [RP V ol. 5, 2052 -55] Thus, it appears 9 that M r. G ar ci a ha d pr oba ble cau se to be lie ve P la int if f w as pot en tia lly

li ab le f or 10 Salaz ar’ s injuries. This is especially true, given the fact that in m alicious-a b u s e-of11 process cases there m ust be a “ m ani fe s t” lack of probable cause in order to protect 12 lit igants ’ ri ght of

a cc es s to the c ourts. Le nsC raf te rs, In c. v. Ke hoe , 201 2- N MS C- 020, 13 ¶ 29, 282 P

. 3d 7 58

. 14 { 10} In response to our notice Plaintiff does not discuss th e probable-cause issue as 1 5 it pe rt a i n s t o t h e i n i t i a l f i l i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t

. I n s t e a d , h e c o n t e n d s t h a tM r . G ar ci a 16 w ro ngf

ull y pr olo nge d th e lit igatio n w ith out pr oba ble ca use to do so, by

a tte m pti ng t o 17 fi le a n a m en de d c om

pla int r athe r than di sm iss ing the law sui t. [ A m en de d D S 20- 21] 18 T he re a re a t l ea st tw o pr obl em s w ithP la int if f’ s arg um en t. F ir st, a t the tim e Mr

. G ar ci a 19 requested perm issio n to am end the com plaint, the fac ts surround i ng the Salazar10

1 inc ide nt w er e sti ll dis put ed

. A lth oughno w itn es s ha d id en tif ie d P la int iff as the 2 indiv idual who allegedly struck Salazar, re s p o nses to in terrogatories had been filed 3 indicating that Plaintiff w as identified as the driver of the vehicle that approached 4 Sa la zar an d inw hic h th e al le ge d a ssa ilant w as se at ed ; tha t Pl ai nti ff ex ite d the ve hic le 5 and urged his com

panion to attack Salazar; and that Plaintiff drov e the vehicle aw ay 6 from t he sc e ne . [ R P V ol

. 5, 20 57 ] W e un de r st a nd t hat P l a i nt i f f c l a i m s t he se alleged 7 fa ct s are c om

ple te f ab ri cati on s; how ev er , P la int if f ha s c ite d no auth or ity

ind ic at ing 8 that a dis put e co nc er

nin g th e fa ct

ua l ba ck gr ound

of a n in ci de nt m eans tha t pr oba ble 9 cause is lacking for a particular version of the events, and w e do n o t b elieve such 10 au th or it y

ex is ts

. Se e, e . g. , L en sC raf te rs , 201 2- N MS C- 020, ¶ 31 ( hol din g th at

to 11 es ta bli sh l ac k of

pr oba ble c au se , aparty

m ust sho wthat the opp osi ng party la ck ed a 12 reasonable belief in the fa ctual allegations or the law appl i ca b l e t o thos e fa cts). 13 Furthe rm or e, P la int if

f ha s no t arg ue d or

c ite d auth or ity fo r th e pr opos iti on tha t the 14 evidence o utlin ed above could no t as a m atter of law give rise to a claim for dam ages 15 ag ai ns t h im

. Se e id. I t the re fo re appe ar s, ba se d onthe r ec or d be fo re us, that M r. G ar ci a 16 ha d p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atth e fi li ng of a n a m en de d c om pl ai nt was p ro pe r. 17 { 11} T he oth er

pr obl em w ith Pl ai nti ff

’ s ar gum en t is that the iss ue of the fi lin g of the 18 am en de d c om

pla int a ro se sho rtl ybe fo re A lls ta te se ttl ed w ithS al az ar , the re by 19 pr ev en tin g P la int if

f fr om ha vin g any

pos sib le li ab ili ty

to Sa la zar. [ RP V ol. 2, 723 ,11

1 January 14, 201 1 m oti on t o f ile a m en de d c om

pla int ; am en de d D S 12, se ttl em en t 2 co n fe re n ce h el dJ an u ary 2 8 ; RP Vo l . 2 , 7 8 2 , s t i p u l at i o n o f d i s m i s s al fi l ed M ar ch 9 ] 3 T he re is nothin g in the re co rd to ind ic at e that P la int if

f suf fe re d any da m ag e dur ing the 4 br ie f tim e pe ri od f

ro m the a tte m

pt t o f ile the a m en de d c om

pla int to the se ttl em en t. 5 Su chasho w ing of

da m ag es is one of

the e le m en ts o f the m al ic iou s- ab use -o f- pr oc es s 6 cau se of a ct io n. Se e Le nsC raf te rs , 2012-NMS C-020, ¶ 30. T herefor e, the district court 7 did not e rr in fi ndi ng that Pl ai nti ff co uld not es ta bli sh al l of the el em en ts o f the c la im 8 he sou ght

to br ing a ga ins t M r. G ar ci a, a nd d id n ot e rr in de ny ing Pl ai nti ff ’ s m oti on t o 9 a men dt o a d dM r . Ga r c i aa s ap a rt y. 10 { 12} Based on the foregoing, we aff irm the district court’ s judgm ent in this case. 11 { 13} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 12

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ __ 13 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e

14 WE CO NCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 C Y N TH IAA . F R

Y , Ju dg e

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 18 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e12