Higgins v. Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RACHEL HIGGINS, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of
John T. Sanchez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM
BERNALILLO COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Rachel Higgins, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of John T. Sanchez (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint, ECF No. 115, filed September 9, 2025. Defendants Corizon Health of New
Mexico, LLC and Natasha Bustamante (“Defendants”) filed a Response on September 24, 2025,
ECF No. 124. Upon review of the Parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the Court
will GRANT the Motion.
I. Background
On June 12, 2023, John T. Sanchez was being held at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan
Detention Center (“MDC”). Am. Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 29. At that time, the Bernalillo County
Board of Commissioners contracted with Defendant Corizon Health of New Mexico, LLC
(“CHNM”) to provide medical, dental, mental health, and psychiatric services to MDC inmates.
Id. ¶ 7. The operative Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Bustamante was employed by
CHNM as a nurse at MDC, and was working at MDC on June 12, 2023. Id. ¶ 8.
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 8

2
On June 12, 2023, MDC staff “slammed Mr. Sanchez headfirst onto the concrete/tile
surface of Metropolitan Detention Center’s floor while simultaneously sweeping Mr. Sanchez’s
legs out from underneath him, causing immediate life-threatening injuries to Mr. Sanchez’s head,
neck, and spine.” Id. ¶ 30. The impact broke Mr. Sanchez’s spine and neck, compressed several
vertebrae, caused several spinal fractures, and caused Mr. Sanchez’s brain to bleed. Id. ¶ 39. Mr.
Sanchez was transported to MDC’s medical unit, but Bustamante “did not provide any . . .
diagnostic exams and did not provide any treatment to Mr. Sanchez.” Id. ¶¶ 40, 50. “Despite him
suffering a significant injury to his head, neck, and spine, [CHNM] failed to conduct basic medical
diagnostic work and treatment, nor was Mr. Sanchez transported for medical treatment.” Id. ¶ 54.
“Instead, [CHNM] immediately cleared Mr. Sanchez to be returned to his cell.” Id. ¶ 62. Mr.
Sanchez ultimately died as a result of his injuries. Id. ¶ 144.
On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff instituted this lawsuit. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On June
3, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint against, inter alia, CHNM and
Bustamante. ECF No. 29 ¶¶ 7-8.
On October 31, 2024, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing a November 21,
2024 deadline to amend the complaint and join additional parties. ECF No. 49 at 1.
On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint. ECF No. 115. On September 24, 2025, Defendants filed a Response. ECF
No. 124. On October 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice that the Parties agreed to extend the deadline
to file a reply to October 21, 2025. ECF No. 132. On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed another
Notice that the Parties agreed to extend the deadline to file a reply, this time to November 11, 2025.
ECF No. 138. Plaintiff did not file a timely reply.
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 8

3
II. Legal Standard
Whether to grant a motion for leave to amend filed after the deadline to amend pleadings
is a two-step inquiry. Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240-
41 (10th Cir. 2014). Initially, the Court must determine whether the movant has demonstrated
“good cause” for the amendment under Rule 16(b)(4), which provides that “[a] schedule may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Id. at 1240. “[T]his standard requires
the movant to show the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite [the movant’s] diligent efforts.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If the movant establishes good cause under
Rule 16(b)(4), the Court then must determine whether leave to amend is appropriate under Rule
15(a). Id. The Supreme Court has explained:
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought
should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “When a party moving to amend seeks to join
additional parties, the Federal Rules governing mandatory or permissive joinder are also
implicated.” Hawkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Case No. 17-2687-KHV-ADM, 2019 WL
4034469, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 27, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 & 20).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add two defendants: CHS TX, Inc. and the
company that subsequently acquired it, YesCare Corp. (“YesCare”). See Mot. at 2, 6-7, 13. She
asserts that during the course of discovery, Defendants “have produced documents which indicate
that YesCare . . . was responsible for Mr. Sanchez’s care on or about June 12, 2023, and that
Defendant Bustamante was an employee of YesCare.” Id. at 2; see also id. at 8. She cites the
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 8

4
following evidence as “blur[ring] any sort of line between YesCare and [CHNM,]” Mot. at 3: Mr.
Sanchez’s medical administration records which display “YesCare” at the top, ECF No. 115-2;
Attestation Sheets from Bustamante’s personnel file labeled “YesCare at Bernalillo Metropolitan
Detention Center[,]” ECF No. 115-3; a Corrective Action Form issued to Bustamante on YesCare
letterhead and identifying Bustamante as a YesCare team member, and which references training
she received from CHNM, ECF Nos. 115-4, -5; a July 15, 2023 letter indicating that Bustamante
was informed that management “terminate[d] her employment with YesCare effective
immediately[,]” ECF No. 115-6; a Terminated Employee Personnel File Checklist Form issued to
Bustamante on Corizon Health letterhead, ECF No. 115-7; an email regarding the events of June
12, 2023, from Bustamante to Jason Duran, ECF No. 115-8, who is listed on the Corrective Action
Form on YesCare letterhead as “Manager,” ECF No. 115-4; policies and training modules produced
in discovery that variously appear on YesCare and Corizon Health letterhead, ECF No. 115-9; the
contract between Bernalillo County and CHNM to provide medical, dental, mental health, and
psychiatric services to MDC inmates, ECF No. 115-10; an insurance policy listing YesCare as the
“First Named Insured” and CHNM (and others) as “Insured Organizations[,]” ECF No. 115-11; an
excess insurance policy listing both CHNM and YesCare as Named Insureds, ECF No. 115-12; a
Bernalillo County Office of Professional Standards Report of the incident identifying YesCare as
the “former MDC contracted Medical provider” and identifying individual medical providers as
“Yes Care Medical Staff Members[,]” ECF No. 115-13; Bustamante’s deposition transcript in
which she described CHNM becoming YesCare during her employment, ECF No. 115-14; and the
deposition transcript of Louie Romero who indicates that YesCare was a medical service provider
at MDC, ECF No. 115-15. Plaintiff argues that courts “routinely find that plaintiffs should be
permitted to add defendants like YesCare, who are ‘interrelated’ and have ‘potential alter ego
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 8

5
liability for largely the same underlying factual conduct’ as defendants already named.” Mot. at 8
(quoting Conde v. Sensa, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1070 (S.D. Cal. 2017), and citing Soroof Trading
Dev. Co., Ltd. v. GE Microgen, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 142, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Marino v. Gotham
Chalkboard Mfg. Corp., 259 F. Supp. 953, 954 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); Galion v. Conmaco Int’l, Inc.,
658 P.2d 1130, 1133-34 (N.M. 1983)). Plaintiff further argues that Defendants will not be unduly
prejudiced because she is not adding allegations of fact or causes of action against them. Id. at 10-
11. Plaintiff further argues that the Second Amended Complaint is not unduly delayed or motivated
by bad faith or dilatory intent, and is not futile. Id. at 11-13.
In their Response—which is supported by the affidavit of Corizon Health’s former general
counsel, Scott King, ECF No. 124-1—Defendants provide a corporate structure history explaining
that as the result of a divisional merger, on May 5, 2022, CHNM became a subsidiary of CHS TX,
Inc., but “remained a separate and distinct corporate entity and continued to be the responsible
contracting party with Bernalillo County under the Professional Services Agreement.” ECF No.
124 at 2. Subsequently, YesCare acquired CHS TX, Inc., but YesCare “is a holding company and
is not legally responsible for the liabilities of CHNM.” Id. at 3. “All of the YesCare entities operate
under the brand name YesCare, but each entity retains its individual corporate structure and
separateness and maintains its individual contracts with local county and state governments.” Id.
Defendants argue that amending the complaint to name YesCare and CHS TX, Inc. would be futile
because the “operative legal documentation shows CHNM as the operative responsible services
provider under the Agreement.” Id. (citing Medical, Dental, Mental Health and Psychiatric
Services Professional Services Agreement, ECF No. 124-2; Surety Bond, ECF No. 124-3;
Certificate of Liability Insurance, ECF No. 124-4; Termination Agreement, ECF No. 124-5). They
argue that the proposed Second Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege that YesCare or CHS
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 8

6
TX, Inc. “actually took over as the responsible party under the Agreement at MDC.” Id. at 7.
Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is prejudicial because it would
require reopening fact discovery. Id. at 8. They further ague that permitting amendment would be
futile because Plaintiff’s alter-ego allegations are deficient. Id. at 8-11. They further argue that
the attempt to add YesCare and CHS TX, Inc. fails under Rule 15(c) to the extent it is premised on
relation back. Id. at 11. Finally, they argue that Plaintiff’s cited authorities are distinguishable,
and Plaintiff’s evidence of corporate blurring is insufficient. Id. at 11-13.
Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established “good cause” under Rule 16(b)(4) to
permit amendment beyond the deadline to add parties and amend pleadings. An initial scheduling
order requiring initial disclosures was entered on September 20, 2024. ECF No. 41. On October
31, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez issued a Scheduling Order
establishing a November 21, 2024 deadline to amend the complaint and join additional parties,
and a July 31, 2025 deadline for discovery. ECF No. 49 at 1-2. On August 26, 2025, Judge
Martinez extended the discovery deadline to October 29, 2025. ECF No. 106 at 1. On November
12, 2025, Judge Martinez again extended the discovery deadline, this time to March 9, 2026. ECF
No. 144. According to the Parties’ Joint Motions to Extend Discovery Deadlines, they “have been
diligently and consistently exchanging discovery, conferring on discovery disputes, and taking and
scheduling depositions.” ECF No. 139 at 2; see also ECF No. 99 at 1 (stating that “[t]he Parties
diligently have been engaging in discovery practice”). Given that the Parties have diligently
engaged in discovery, and given the Plaintiff’s Motion is premised on evidence accumulated over
the course of discovery, the Court finds that the deadline to amend pleadings and add parties could
not be met despite Plaintiff’s diligence.
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 6 of 8

7
Next, the Court finds that leave to amend is appropriate under Rule 15(a). Defendants do
not argue undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on Plaintiff’s part, and the Court finds no
evidence or inference of such. And the Court is not persuaded that permitting the amendment
would prejudice Defendants. In this regard, Defendants appear to argue that they would be
prejudiced because the amendment would be untimely and would require reopening fact discovery.
Resp. at 8. However, the Court recently granted the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Trial,
rescheduling trial for October 12, 2026. ECF No. 121. Thus, the Court cannot find that Defendants
would be prejudiced on timeliness grounds. Furthermore, Judge Martinez just extended the
discovery deadline to March 9, 2026. ECF No. 144. Therefore, the Court cannot find that
Defendants would be prejudiced by additional discovery.
Next, the Court declines to find that the proposed amendments would be futile. “A
proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.” Full
Life Hospice, LLC v. Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1018 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bradley v. Val-
Mejias, 379 F.3d 892, 901 (10th Cir. 2004)). “Although leave to amend may be denied based on
futility alone, courts may decline to consider futility if it would be more appropriately addressed
in dispositive motions.” Mayor v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-00012, 2025 WL
2194057, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 1, 2025) (citations omitted). “Particularly where futility arguments
duplicate arguments which could be raised in a motion to dismiss, courts have found that
addressing futility in a motion to amend ‘place[s] the cart before the horse,’ and ‘defendants may
be better served by waiting to assert Rule 12 motions until the operative complaint is in place.’”
id. (quoting Obeslo v. Great-W. Cap. Mgmt., LLC, Civil Action No. 16-cv-00230-CMA-MJW,
2017 WL 10591604, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 21, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017
WL 10591349 (D. Colo. Mar. 14, 2017)). See also Burns v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Case No.
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 7 of 8

8
25-2190-JAR-GEB, 2025 WL 2912635, at *2 & n.16 (D. Kan. Oct. 14, 2025) (collecting cases).
Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ arguments are more appropriately examined in the context
of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment filed by YesCare and/or CHS TX, Inc., if
they agree with CHNM and Bustamante that the proposed Second Amended Complaint is
deficiently pled or factually meritless.
Finally, Defendants do not argue that joinder of YesCare and CHS TX, Inc. would be
improper under Rule 19 or 20. Thus, the Court finds that YesCare and CHS TX, Inc. may be
properly joined in this action.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 115, is
GRANTED; and
2. Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN DAYS from the date of this Order to file the
Second Amended Complaint as a separate entry on the docket.1
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Alternatively, if the reason Plaintiff did not file a reply brief is because she no longer believes that
YesCare and CHS TX, Inc. are proper Defendants in this action, she may file a Notice that she wishes to proceed with
her Amended Complaint.
Case 1:24-cv-00167-MIS-DLM Document 148 Filed 11/17/25 Page 8 of 8