Garcia et al v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ROMAN GARCIA, Individually and as
Representative of the Estate of
Celia Saenz Tangonan, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 2:25-cv-00645-KG-GJF
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD
SAMARITAN SOCIETY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion to compel arbitration and stay this case
filed by Defendant the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. Doc. 8. For the reasons
below, the motion is granted, and this case is stayed pending the conclusion of arbitration.
I. Background
Celia Saenz Tangonan died in June 2023 at age 94 while in the care of Defendant—a
nursing home in Las Cruces, New Mexico—allegedly because of Defendant’s negligent care.
See Doc. 1 at 14–19. Before her death, the decedent gave healthcare decision-making authority
to her daughter, Plaintiff Elisa Vera, who signed an arbitration agreement with Defendant on her
mother’s behalf in April 2023. See Doc. 8 at 22–24.
The arbitration agreement is broad in scope. The parties agreed, for example, that “[a]ny
legal controversy, dispute, disagreement or claim arising between the Parties hereto after the
execution of this [agreement] in which Resident, or a person acting on…her behalf, alleges a
violation of any right granted Resident under law or contract shall be settled exclusively by
binding arbitration as set forth in [this agreement].” Id. at 22. The parties similarly agreed that:
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KG-GJF Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Any legal controversy, dispute, disagreement or claim of any kind arising out of or
related to this [agreement]…or, related to the care of stay at the Facility, shall be settled
exclusively by binding arbitration as set forth in [this agreement]. This arbitration clause
is meant to apply to all controversies, disputes, disagreements or claims including, but not
limited to…all negligence and malpractice claims…[and] all tort claims…. This
arbitration provision binds all parties whose claims may arise out of or relate to treatment
or service provided by the center including any spouse or heirs of the Resident. Id.
The parties also agreed that the arbitrator decides threshold issues of arbitrability. The
agreement states that the “issue of whether a Party’s claim(s) is subject to arbitration under this
[agreement] shall be decided by the arbitrator,” and the parties “expressly agree that the
Arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to resolve any disputes related to the existence and/or
enforceability” of the arbitration agreement, “including but not limited to any claim that all or
any part” of the arbitration agreement “is void or voidable.” Id. at 22–23.
Plaintiffs, the decedent’s children, filed this lawsuit against Defendant in June 2025,
alleging negligence and wrongful death. Id. In July 2025, Defendant filed the present motion to
compel arbitration, arguing that the arbitrator must decide issues concerning the arbitration
agreement’s existence and enforceability. Docs. 8–9. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing, for
example, that Defendant failed to authenticate certain evidence and that the arbitration agreement
is unconscionable under New Mexico law. Doc. 16. Plaintiffs separately filed evidentiary
“objections” to materials attached to Defendant’s motion.1 Doc. 15.
II. Standard of Review
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), a “written provision in…a contract
evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter
1 A party opposing a motion in this Court may file only one “response” to the motion, and
the response “must not exceed twenty-four (24) double-spaced pages.” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(b),
7.3(a), 7.5. Plaintiffs, however, filed a 20-page response to Defendant’s motion, Doc. 16, along
with separately filed evidentiary “objections” that are five pages long. Doc. 15. Plaintiffs’
separate filings violate this Court’s local rules. The Court will consider Plaintiffs’ “objections”
in this case, but the parties are reminded to follow the local rules for all future filings.
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KG-GJF Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 6

3
arising out of such contract…shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2.2 “Under
the Act, arbitration is a matter of contract, and courts must enforce arbitration contracts
according to their terms.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, 586 U.S. 63, 67 (2019).
“[P]arties may agree to have an arbitrator decide not only the merits of a particular
dispute but also gateway questions of arbitrability, such as whether the parties have agreed to
arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.” Id. at 67–68 (quotation
marks omitted). That is because an “agreement to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an
additional, antecedent agreement [that] the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to
enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any
other.” Id. at 68. There must be “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties “delegated
arbitrability issues to the arbitrator,” and if that requirement is satisfied, courts have “no power to
decide the arbitrability issue.” Brayman v. KeyPoint Gov’t Sols., Inc., 83 F.4th 823, 832 (10th
Cir. 2023) (quoting Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 68).
“In a case involving a delegation clause, a challenge to the arbitration agreement as a
whole is insufficient[;] the party seeking to avoid arbitration must specifically challenge the
delegation clause.” Palczynsky v. Oil Patch Grp., Inc., 2024 WL 3858911, at *5 (D.N.M.)
(citing Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010)). Otherwise, the court “must
treat the delegation clause as valid and enforce it under the FAA, leaving any challenge to the
validity of the Agreement as a whole for the arbitrator.” Id. (quoting Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at
72); see also Dreamstyle Remodeling, Inc. v. Renewal by Andersen, LLC, 2020 WL 2065276, at
2 The parties expressly agreed in the arbitration agreement that the FAA governs this
case, see Doc. 8 at 23 ¶ D, and Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendant’s contention that the FAA
applies here. Compare Doc. 9 at 3–4 with Doc. 16.
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KG-GJF Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 6

4
*4 (D.N.M.) (“As explained by the Supreme Court in Rent-A-Center, if a plaintiff fails to raise a
specific challenge to the delegation provision, the court must enforce the provision.”).
III. Analysis
The Court concludes that there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties
delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator in this case. See Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at
68. Plaintiff Vera signed an arbitration agreement on her mother’s behalf broadly stating that the
“issue of whether a Party’s claim(s) is subject to arbitration under this [agreement] shall be
decided by the arbitrator,” who “shall have exclusive authority to resolve any disputes related to
the existence and/or enforceability” of the arbitration agreement, “including but not limited to
any claim that all or any part” of the arbitration agreement “is void or voidable.” Doc. 8 at 22–
23 (emphasis added). The Tenth Circuit has enforced delegation provisions with similar
language. See Brayman, 83 F.4th at 829–30 (arbitrator had “exclusive authority to resolve any
dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation” of arbitration
agreement); Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, 844 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2017) (“arbitrability
disputes” about “formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope…shall be submitted [to]
and ruled on by the Arbitrator”). Personal representatives in wrongful death cases are bound by
the decedent’s arbitration agreements under New Mexico law. E.g., Est. of Krahmer v. Laurel
Healthcare Providers, LLC, 2014-NMCA-001, ¶ 16, 315 P.3d 298. The Court therefore enforces
the delegation provisions in the parties’ agreement and leaves the threshold question of
arbitrability for the arbitrator to resolve. See Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 68.
Plaintiffs challenge the arbitration agreement, but Plaintiffs’ arguments do not persuade
the Court. First, Plaintiffs argue that the delegation provisions are invalid because the arbitration
agreement “does not incorporate any arbitration rules allowing an arbitrator to decide gateway
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KG-GJF Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 6

5
questions of arbitrability.” Doc. 16 at 11–14. This argument lacks merit. Incorporating
standardized arbitration rules into an agreement, such as rules created by the American
Arbitration Association or JAMS, is one way to delegate gateway questions of arbitrability to the
arbitrator, but it is not a requirement for a valid delegation. E.g., Brayman, 83 F.4th at 832–36
(enforcing delegation provision that did not incorporate standardized arbitration rules).
Second, Plaintiffs contend that the Court cannot enforce the arbitration agreement
because Defendant did not authenticate it and because it is hearsay under the Federal Rules of
Evidence. See Doc. 16 at 5; Doc. 15. The Court rejects these arguments. Responding to
Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections, Defendant authenticated the agreement in its entirety through
the affidavit of Lori Mondragon, Defendant’s former Social Services Director, thus rendering
Plaintiffs’ authentication objections moot. Doc. 18-1 ¶¶ 7–8; see, e.g., BigBen 1613, LLC v.
Belcaro Grp., Inc., 2018 WL 4257321, at *2 (D. Colo.) (allowing movant to authenticate
arbitration agreement through declaration attached to reply). Likewise, the signed arbitration
agreement is not hearsay because it is “an act of legal significance between” Plaintiffs and
Defendant and “not a ‘statement’ offered for its truth.” Cagle v. James St. Grp., 400 Fed. Appx
348, 356 (10th Cir. 2010).
Last, Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration agreement as a whole is unenforceable because it
is unconscionable. Doc. 16 at 15–19. The parties, however, expressly agreed that the arbitrator
has “exclusive authority” to decide the arbitration agreement’s “enforceability.” Doc. 8 at 22–23
(emphasis added). The Court therefore enforces the plain language of the arbitration agreement
and leaves Plaintiffs’ unconscionability arguments for the arbitrator to resolve in the first
instance. E.g., Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at 72–76 (sending unconscionability argument to
arbitration where parties delegated arbitrability question to arbitrator).
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KG-GJF Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IV. Conclusion
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration (Doc. 8) is GRANTED, and this case is
STAYED pending the arbitration’s conclusion. See 9 U.S.C. § 3 (courts “shall…stay the trial of
the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement”).
The parties shall file a status report six months from the date of this order if a resolution
has not been reached.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 2:25-cv-00645-KG-GJF Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 Page 6 of 6