Court Opinion

ID: 9623763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:42:52.217247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:55.662481
License: Public Domain

STOWERS, Justice, dissenting. I dissent. The majority conclude that “[djefendant’s total activities in New Mexico were sufficient to subject defendant to the jurisdiction of the New Mexico court in this case.” However, defendant’s activities consisted only of a phone call and the mailing of a brochure from Arizona to plaintiff in New Mexico. This does not constitute the transaction of business. The record indicates that the advertisement of defendant’s alcoholism treatment center in the yellow pages of the Albuquerque telephone directory for the years 1981 and 1982 only gave Arizona phone numbers; therefore, one would expect that any business done with “The Meadows” would have to be done in Arizona. Although “The Meadows” made contact with the director of the Albuquerque affiliate of the National Council on Alcoholism to solicit his referral of patients to the treatment center, the record does not disclose whether such referrals ever took place. Finally, plaintiff failed to establish any relationship between these activities and her cause of action. The long-arm statute requires a close relationship between a nonresident defendant’s jurisdictional activities and the cause of action against which he must defend. Winward v. Holly Creek Mills, Inc., 88 N.M. 469, 493 P.2d 954 (1972). Plaintiff’s cause of action arises from conduct which Arizona rather than New Mexico has the most, if not all, significant connections. Because of the foregoing, I agree with the rationale of the Court of Appeals and their conclusion that “plaintiff has not sustained her burden to demonstrate a cause of action arising from a jurisdicitonal act specified by statute.” Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.