Cedrins v. Stoops ( 2010 )

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please
2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.
3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated
4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does
5 not include the filing date.
6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 INARA CEDRINS,
8 Plaintiff-Appellant,
9 v. NO. 30,583
10 RICHARD STOOPS, RICHARD SHAPIRO,
11 and GEORGE ADELO,
12 Defendants-Appellees.
13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
14 Ted Baca, District Judge
15 Inara Cedrins
16 Chicago, IL
17 Pro se Appellant
18 Maria Geer Garcia
19 Albuquerque, NM
20 for Appellee Richard Stoops
21 Richard Shapiro
22 Santa Fe, NM
23 Pro se Appellee
1 George Adelo
2 Santa Fe, NM
3 Pro se Appellee
4 MEMORANDUM OPINION
5 CASTILLO, Judge.
6 Plaintiff appeals three separate orders dismissing her claims against Defendants.
7 In this Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to dismiss in
8 part and affirm in part. Plaintiff has responded with a memorandum in which she
9 concedes that dismissal of her appeal is appropriate as to her claims against
10 Defendants Shapiro and Adelo, and in which she opposes this Court’s proposed
11 affirmance of the district court’s order with respect to her claims against Defendant
12 Stoops. We have duly considered Plaintiff’s arguments regarding our proposed
13 disposition of her appeal of the order regarding Defendant Stoops, and as we are not
14 persuaded by them, we affirm the district court’s order as to Defendant Stoops. We
15 dismiss the appeal as to Defendants Shapiro and Adelo for lack of a final order.
16 Plaintiff’s complaint asserted that during the course of Defendant Stoops’s
17 representation of Plaintiff’s ex-husband in an annulment proceeding, Defendant
18 Stoops was paid by a third party and engaged in various actions contrary to Plaintiff’s
19 interests. [RP 8, 10, 11, 12] In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we
20 proposed to affirm the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against
2
1 Defendant Stoops because the conduct alleged did not meet the stringent threshold
2 requirement that it be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go
3 beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly
4 intolerable in a civilized community.” Trujillo v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Coop.,
5 Inc., 2002-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 25-26, 131 N.M. 607, 41 P.3d 333 (internal quotation
6 marks and citation omitted).
7 In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, she continues to assert that her
8 claim against Defendant Stoops should have been permitted to go forward because his
9 actions left her without assets and caused extreme emotional distress. However, as we
10 stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition, Defendant Stoops was simply
11 acting on behalf of his client, which was in a position adversarial to Plaintiff, see
12 Garcia v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., 106 N.M. 757, 760-62, 750
13 P.2d 118, 121-23 (1988) (discussing the adversarial nature of litigation and declining
14 to impose on an attorney a duty to protect the interests of an opposing party), and a
15 divorce is often a traumatic and emotional experience, such that an intentional
16 infliction of emotional distress claim in the context of a marriage must be limited only
17 to the most extreme circumstances, cf. Hakkila v. Hakkila, 112 N.M. 172, 176-79, 812
18 P.2d 1320, 1324-27 (Ct. App. 1991) (stating that in an intentional infliction of
19 emotional distress suit between spouses, only the most extreme conduct will provide
3
1 a basis for the tort). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s
2 claims against Defendant Stoops.
3 Therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice of proposed
4 summary disposition, we affirm the district court’s order as to Defendant Stoops, and
5 dismiss as premature the appeal with respect to Defendants Shapiro and Adelo.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 ________________________________
8 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
9 WE CONCUR:
10 __________________________________
11 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
12 __________________________________
13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
4