{12} "Arbitration agreements are a species of contract, subject to the principles of New Mexico contract law." L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum , 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 18, 392 P.3d 194. "Accordingly, we apply New Mexico contract law in [the] interpretation and construction of the [a]rbitration [a]greement."

"In construing a contract, the law favors a reasonable rather than unreasonable interpretation." L.D. Miller Construction v. Kirschenbaum, 392 P.3d 194, 199 (N.M. App. 2016) (quoting State ex rel. Udall v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 112 N.M. 123, 130 (S.Ct. 1991)); see also Alldredge v. Alldredge, 151 P. 311, 313 (N.M. 1915) (like contracts, stipulations should be given a reasonable construction, with a view to effect the intent of the parties).

DISCUSSION {¶4} "Arbitration agreements are a species of contract, subject to the principles of New Mexico contract law." L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 18, 392 P.3d 194. "We review de novo any grant of a motion to compel arbitration."

"Arbitration agreements are a species of contract," and thus to determine if there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, courts look "to principles of New Mexico contract law." L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 18, 392 P.3d 194. "Parties to a contract agree to be bound by its provisions and must accept the burdens of the contract along with the benefits."

See Christopherson v. St. Vincent Hosp., 2016-NMCA-097, ¶ 47, 384 P.3d 1098 ("Generally, the district court's rulings as to admissibility of expert testimony are reviewed for an abuse of discretion."); Lovato v. Crawford & Co., 2003-NMCA-088, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 108, 73 P.3d 246 ("A motion to amend is addressed to the discretion of the [district] court and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion as occurred."); Jolley v. Energen Res. Corp., 2008-NMCA-164, ¶ 24, 145 N.M. 350, 198 P.3d 376 ("A motion to declare a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and our review is limited to determining whether that discretion was abused."); L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 17, 392 P.3d 194 ("Generally, we review a district court's ruling under Rule 1-060(B) [NMRA] for abuse of discretion.") Goodman v. OS Rest. Servs., LLC, 2020-NMCA-019, ¶ 25, 461 P.3d 906 (stating that our review of a district court's ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law is de novo); Chavarria v. Fleetwood Retail Corp., 2006-NMSC-046, ¶ 36, 140 N.M. 478, 143 P.3d 717 (stating that we review the constitutionality of a punitive damages award de novo); Holcomb v. Rodriguez, 2016-NMCA-075, ¶ 26, 387 P.3d 286 ("We review a district court's award of prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion."); Cobb v. Gammon, 2017-NMCA-022, ¶ 60, 389 P.3d 1058 ("We review an award of attorney[] fees for abuse of discretion."); Marshall v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 1997-NMCA-121, ¶ 28, 124 N.M. 381, 951 P.2d 76 ("We review appeals involving the granting or denial of an award of costs for abuse of discretion.").

L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 18, 392 P.3d 194. "Contract interpretation is a matter of law that we review de novo."

{¶5}"Arbitration agreements are a species of contract, subject to the principles of New Mexico contract law." L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 18, 392 P.3d 194. "Accordingly, we apply New Mexico contract law in the interpretation and construction of the arbitration agreement."

I. Unconscionability of Agreement {¶2} "Arbitration agreements are a species of contract, subject to the principles of New Mexico contract law." L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 18, 392 P.3d 194. Therefore, "we apply New Mexico contract law in [the] interpretation and construction of the [a]rbitration [a]greement."

Ultimately, the Garcias do not convince us, and we do not otherwise perceive, that the district court's ruling in this regard was an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., State v.Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the district court's rulings, and the party claiming error on appeal bears the burden of showing such error); see also L.D. Miller Constr.,Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶¶ 15-16, 392 P.3d 194 (presuming correctness in a district court's Rule 1-060(B) ruling). We explain, turning first to Rule 1-019(A) and then to Section 7-38-48(A).

{6} We remain unpersuaded that Appellant has demonstrated the district court abused its discretion in denying her motions. See L.D. Miller Constr., Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030, ¶ 16, 392 P.3d 194 ("Appellate courts will not interfere with the action of the district court . . . [regarding] an appeal from the denial of a Rule 1-060(B) [NMRA] motion, except upon a showing of abuse of discretion by the district court." (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted)).