 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dominguez v. Perovich Properties3/30/2005
. See Stein v. Alpine Sports, Inc., 1998-NMSC-040, 9, 126 N.M. 258, 968 P.2d 769 (stating that one factor in assessing retroactive application is whether the case creates a new principle of law). We see no need to address this alternative contention of Employer. Assuming, without deciding, that Delgado applies retroactively, we are satisfied that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief, based on his failure as a matter of law to satisfy the Delgado requirements.
Third Amended Complaint
The district court determined Plaintiff's third amended complaint would be a futility given the court's ruling that his facts could not "sustain a Delgado action, or a claim outside the exclusivity provision[ ] of the ." The court did not abuse its discretion, since we have affirmed the court's determination and have held that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief because of his failure as a matter of law to satisfy the Delgado requirements.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of Employer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
|