- Areas of Practice
- Significant Victories
- Publications & Presentations
Rosalind B. Bienvenu is a partner in the firm’s Santa Fe, New Mexico office. She focuses her practice on civil appeals and strategic trial support at both the state and federal level. Prior to joining the firm, Rosalind worked as a trial attorney specializing in complex litigation including catastrophic injury, toxic tort, product defect, and pharmaceutical cases.
Rosalind earned her law degree from New York University School of Law, cum laude, where she was a Florence Allen Scholar and Managing Editor of the NYU Law Review. During law school, she interned at Sanctuary for Families, New York’s leading service provider and advocate for survivors of domestic violence and sex trafficking. She began her legal career at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison LLP in New York, practicing complex commercial litigation with a focus on securities, class action, intellectual property, insurance, and white collar criminal matters. Committed to offering pro bono legal assistance, she also successfully represented clients seeking political asylum and refugee status in the United States. From 2014 to 2015, she served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Rosalind earned her undergraduate degree from Harvard University, magna cum laude, where she studied English literature and documentary filmmaking. Before attending law school, she lived in Eastern Europe as a Henry Russell Shaw Fellow, taught English in rural Japan, and worked for Google in its Cambridge, Massachusetts office.
Rosalind is licensed to practice in New Mexico, Texas, and New York.
Affirming trial court’s order denying special appearance by an aircraft manufacturer in a wrongful death products liability case. The plaintiff’s husband was killed when his aircraft crashed in Bexar County. The Minnesota-based aircraft manufacturer challenged the court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, arguing that the manufacturer lacked the necessary minimum contacts with Texas because the plaintiff’s claims did not arise from or relate to any purposeful activity it conducted in Texas. The Court of Appeals, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., and the recent Texas Supreme Court decision, Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, rejected the aircraft manufacturer’s arguments and held that the the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction was proper.
Working with trial counsel The Tracy Firm and Williams Injury Law on behalf of a minor client who was seriously injured in a rollover, DP&S defeated Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds. As it had in past cases, the Court rejected Ford’s arguments that its contacts in New Mexico were insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction, and that its registered agent in New Mexico did not equate to consent jurisdiction.
Successfully defeated motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. in a case alleging that Novartis hid serious side effects of its blood cancer drug Tasigna, finding that the plaintiff was not required to preemptively refute Novartis’ affirmative defenses by alleging the exact date he was diagnosed with the drug’s side effects.
Working with trial counsel Paul Hultin and the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, who had previously secured an important ground water victory after a 2-week bench trial on behalf of the San Pedro Creek Homeowners’’ Association and other homeowners, DP&S prevailed on a bill of costs in the amount of $379,854.05, plus post-judgment interest. The cost bill was opposed by Aquifer Science and the Office of State Engineer (“OSE”), and the Court rejected arguments made by both parties in favor of DP&S’ clients. The Court further denied motions to reconsider filed by both Aquifer Science and the OSE following the ruling. DP&S continues to serve as lead appellate counsel in this case pending in the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
DP&S assisted trial counsel Hossley & Embry in prevailing on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG (“BMW AG”). BMW AG argued that it could not be subject to jurisdiction in New Mexico as a German entity lacking substantial contacts with the United States and New Mexico in particular. After two hearings and two rounds of legal briefs, the Court held that BMW AG was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in New Mexico’s courts and denied BMW AG’s motion to dismiss.
On behalf of The Tracy Firm, DP&S successfully defeated Defendant Mitsubishi Motors Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The Defendant had argued that New Mexico’s courts could not exercise specific jurisdiction over Mitsubishi due to its limited contacts in New Mexico and its presence in Japan, working through a U.S.-based distributor. The Court disagreed, adopting the argument advanced by DP&S, that under current and established New Mexico case law, the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Defendant was proper and denied the motion.
On behalf of trial counsel The Tracy Firm and Keller & Keller, successfully defeated Defendant Ford Motor Company’s personal jurisdiction challenge in this wrongful death/products liability case. Ford argued that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of New Mexico’s courts under a specific jurisdiction analysis, and further it argued that its registration as a foreign corporation doing business in New Mexico did not equate to consent jurisdiction. DP&S was able to convince the court that Ford was wrong on both counts under existing New Mexico and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The court held that Ford was subject to specific jurisdiction under the “stream of commerce” theory, and that Ford’s compliance with New Mexico’s Business Corporation Act meant that Ford had consented to jurisdiction in New Mexico.
DP&S’s Justin Kaufman and Rosalind Bienvenu worked with the trial team from Sico Hoelscher Harris LLP (Craig Sico, David Harris, and Louie Cook) in a two-week trial in Santa Fe, New Mexico that resulted in a significant plaintiff’s verdict. The case was brought on behalf of the Armijo family, who lost Kathryn Armijo when a new Werner Enterprises driver lost control of an 18-wheeler on a highway in southern New Mexico, crossed over multiple lanes of travel, and struck Ms. Armjio’s vehicle as she was driving home from work. The case settled for a confidential amount shortly after the verdict.
Working with trial counsel Guajardo & Marks, helped defeat Defendant Paccar, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The court approved of Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant Paccar Inc.’s compliance with the New Mexico Business Corporation Act constitutes consent to be sued in New Mexico for the purposes of personal jurisdiction.
Successfully defeating Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, re-affirming that a foreign corporation’s registration to do business in the state constitutes consent to New Mexico personal jurisdiction.
The Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico applied the “conservation” element of the state’s ground water permit statute, NMSA 72-12-3, to uphold the Office of the State Engineer’s denial of a major developer’s (Aquifer Science) application to withdraw ground water in the East Mountains near Albuquerque. In reviewing the application de novo, Judge Shannon Bacon not only agreed with the local landowners who protested the permit that withdrawing the proposed amount of water would significantly impair existing water rights with no feasible mitigation plan, but also concluded that the developer’s application was “contrary to conservation of water within the state,” in violation of NMSA 72-12-3’s requirements. In denying the application, the court rejected Aquifer Science’s claim that that its plan achieved “conservation” by building golf courses as a place to reuse wastewater and determined that Aquifer Science’s other plans to conserve water through efficient appliances, fixtures, and landscaping were “speculative.” The court also concluded that the developer’s failure to consider the impact of climate change on the supply of surface water—and, thus, ground water—when calculating water demand “suggests a lack of long-term planning regarding conservation.”