NM Court of Appeals to consider whether the state constitution bars police from opening a locked gun safe during a vehicle inventory search

On September 11, 2019, the New Mexico Court of Appeals will hear oral argument in Albuquerque in State v. Leo Jim. UPDATE: On August 6, 2019, the Court vacated the oral argument, and will reset the date.

At issue in this case is whether police may open a locked gun safe during a vehicle inventory search, and whether Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution provides criminal defendants with greater protection than the federal constitution in the inventory-search context.

To my knowledge, this is the third oral argument that the Court of Appeals has set this year. I believe the unusually low number of oral arguments is a result of the Court’s focus on reducing its backlog of cases.

Posted in New Mexico Court of Appeals, Oral Argument | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

10th Circuit: Albuquerque city clerk and lawyers are immune from suit by failed mayoral candidate

Stella Padilla wanted to run for mayor of Albuquerque in 2018, but the city clerk, Natalie Howard, rejected her nominating petition. Padilla filed a suit in state district court asking for declaratory judgment that her petition was proper.

During the lawsuit, Padilla’s daughter, Vanessa Benavidez, allegedly harrassed Ms. Howard on two occasions. On the first, Ms. Benavidez allegedly served Ms. Howard with the state-court lawsuit but then pursued her to demand that she sign an affidavit of service (which she was not required to do). On the second, Ms. Benavidez allegedly confronted Ms. Howard outside the courthouse with a “Stella for Mayor” sign and blocked her path while yelling at her about the case.

Ms. Howard, represented by city attorney Jessica Hernandez, and two of her colleagues, William Zarr and Nicholas Bullock, filed a motion for protective order in state court, which apparently was never ruled upon.

Ms. Benavidez and Ms. Padilla filed a Section 1983 lawsuit in federal court against Howard, Hernandez, Zarr, and Bullock, claiming that the filing of the motion for protective order was filed to retaliate against them for exercising their First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the claims on immunity grounds.

In Benavidez v. Howard, in a per curiam opinion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that “a government defense attorney who, in the course of a civil adjudication, prepares a motion and arranges for the presentation of evidence on the court record by way of affidavit in support of the motion, is absolutely immune from a collateral § 1983 suit for damages based on the filing of such motion and affidavit.”

The Court further held that the claims against the city clerk were properly dismissed based on qualified immunity, since the complaint alleged only that the mere filing of the motion for protective order was in retaliation for the exercise of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Judge Bobby Baldock filed a concurring opinion. He joined the opinion in full, except that he believed that the Court should have affirmed the judgment in the city clerk’s favor based on absolute immunity, not qualified immunity.

Posted in Opinions and Analysis, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

NMCA: Wrongfully enjoined defendant cannot recover damages in the absence of an injunction bond

Norman Gaume filed a lawsuit claiming that the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission had violated the Open Meetings Act, and asked for an injunction against a committee created by the Commission from taking any further action on certain matters related to the Gila River in southwestern New Mexico.

The district court granted a TRO, but did not require the plaintiff to post an injunction bond because he said he could only afford a $500 bond. A little over a month later, the TRO was dissolved. Later, after the Commission largely won on the merits, the district court awarded it over $35,000 in attorney’s fees for its efforts to dissolve the TRO.

In Gaume v. New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (opinion by Judge Vanzi), the Court of Appeals held that a wrongfully enjoined defendant cannot recover damages in the absence of an injunction bond. The Court traced the history of injunctions, and explained that there is no common-law action for wrongful injunction. And no statute or rule provides for such a claim.

Therefore, if the district court has not required the plaintiff to post an injunction bond, then the wrongfully enjoined defendant’s sole recourse is to file an independent action against the plaintiff for malicious abuse of process. (Such claims are, however, exceedingly difficult to win in New Mexico).

Side note: My favorite appellate opinions are those which explain the historical and common-law backgrounds of principles of law, so I found this to be an enjoyable read.

Posted in New Mexico Court of Appeals, Opinions and Analysis | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

NMCA: Employer’s mistaken belief that worker was disabled supported discrimination claim

In Goodman v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC (opinion by Judge Hanisee), the Court of Appeals has held that sufficient evidence supported a jury’s verdict that an employer mistakenly “regarded” the plaintiff worker as disabled, and discriminated against him because of that belief.

The facts provide an object lesson in how not to handle a workers’ compensation claim: The plaintiff injured his ankle on the job at an Outback Steakhouse in Las Cruces, and it swelled to the size of a grapefruit. The plaintiff reported the injury to his supervisor, who allegedly told him that he didn’t need to file a claim, and that if he did so, he would be perceived as “unreliable” and would not be promoted to assistant manager. The supervisor then allegedly refused to make an accommodation because he did not think the plaintiff could perform that work, and then fired the plaintiff after thirty days because he did not show up to work. All of this led to a $95,000 jury verdict against the employer.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a jury conclusion that the employer discriminated against the plaintiff, in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, because it regarded the plaintiff as being disabled. The jury’s conclusion was supported by (a) the supervisor’s testimony that he believed a sprained ankle was a disability; (b) the plaintiff testified that he could have worked if his requested accommodation had been given to him; and (c) medical records provided to the employer contained no restriction on the plaintiff’s ability to perform the work required by the requested accommodation.

The employer also argued that the jury instructions failed to provide adequate guidance on the Human Rights Act to the jury, and that the verdict form was defective because it only asked whether a violation of the Act occurred, but did not ask the jury to specify what the violation was. The employer, however, failed to provide an alternative jury instruction, and withdrew its objection to the verdict form.

Therefore, these claims were waived. This appears to be yet another situation where bringing in an appellate lawyer to review the instructions and verdict form might have helped.

Finally, in a pattern that we’re seeing more often this year, retired Judge Jim Wechsler is on the opinion as a judge pro tempore. In other recent opinions, retired Judges Cynthia Fry and Michael Bustamante, and retired Justice Ed Chavez, have also served as judges pro tempore on Court of Appeals panels. I believe they are doing so (presumably without pay) to help the Court overcome its backlog of cases. They should be commended for doing so!

Posted in New Mexico Court of Appeals, Opinions and Analysis, Preservation of Error | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

NMCA: Judgments Are Forever

The Cadle Company acquired a 1987 state-court judgment against the defendant, and filed suit on the judgment in 2002 and 2009, acquiring new judgments against the defendant each time. In 2016, the Cadle Company filed a suit on the 2009 judgment.

The defendant argued that this claim was barred by NMSA 1978, Sec. 37-1-2, which provides that “[a]ctions founded upon any judgment of any court of the state may be brought within fourteen years from the date of the judgment, and not afterward.” The district court agreed with the defendant that the 2009 and 2002 judgments were founded on the 1987 judgment, and that the 2016 lawsuit was therefore barred, since it was brought 29 years after the 1987 judgment.

In The Cadle Company v. Seavall, the Court of Appeals reversed. In an opinion by Judge Vargas, the Court held that Section 37-1-2 does not abrogate the common-law rule that an “action on a judgment” creates an entirely new judgment.

The upshot is that when a plaintiff obtains a judgment, it can be enforced for 14 years, but if the plaintiff files an “action on the judgment,” and obtains a new judgment, then that new judgment may be enforced for another 14 years. So in this case, the Cadle Company’s 2002 and 2009 judgments each created new 14-year periods in which the judgment can be executed, and therefore the 2016 action was not barred by Section 37-1-2.

The Court recognized that its ruling will effectively allow an original judgment to be enforced forever, but said that it is for the Legislature to decide whether the law should be changed.

Posted in New Mexico Court of Appeals, Opinions and Analysis | Tagged , | Leave a comment

10th Circuit has posted recordings of oral arguments from July 19, 2019

A panel of the Tenth Circuit heard six oral arguments in Santa Fe last week. The court heard five criminal cases, and one civil case involving qualified immunity.

The Court has now posted recordings of those arguments here.

Posted in Oral Argument, Tenth Circuit | Leave a comment

10th Circuit revives lawsuit challenging Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights

Yesterday the Tenth Circuit added another chapter to the long-running saga of Kerr v. Hickenlooper, a lawsuit challenging Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Colorado voters adopted TABOR via an initiative process in the early 1990s. TABOR requires voter approval of new taxes or increases in tax rates. So as you might expect, it’s not popular among politicians. Some Colorado politicians filed this lawsuit, claiming that TABOR violates the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 4), which provides that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government[.]”

I’ve previously written about this case here and here, noting problems with this lawsuit: (1) the meaning of the Guarantee Clause is uncertain; (2) it’s hard to see why TABOR is un-republican, since many states allow citizens to enact or repeal laws or state constitutional provisions; and (3) if this claim were successful it would open the door for federal courts to supervise and overrule the States’ legislative processes in previously unimagined ways.

In a 2016 decision in this case, the Tenth Circuit held that individual legislators lacked standing to challenge TABOR. On remand, several local government entities (i.e. school districts, a special district board, and a county commission) were added as plaintiffs. The district court, however, dismissed their claims because these plaintiffs lacked “political subdivision standing,” under which political subdivisions of a state lack standing to sue the state that created them, unless they are asserting a claim under a federal statute that specifically provides rights to political subdivisions.

But in yesterday’s opinion, written by Judge Stephanie Seymour, the Tenth Circuit held that it was error for the district court to reach this decision, because in doing so it had to construe the meaning of the Guarantee Clause, thereby “impermissibly delving into the merits of the case.” Thus, the standing question is so intertwined with the merits, that it cannot be reached on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.

Judge Jerome Holmes dissented. He would have held that it was proper for the district court to determine whether the Guarantee Clause specifically provides rights to the plaintiffs as part of a threshold standing analysis, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that it does. To my mind, Judge Holmes’ discussion of the relevant precedents seems convincing.

In addition, this case is being covered in the local news media. For example, Anna Staver has this story in the Denver Post.

Posted in Opinions and Analysis, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

NMSC upholds commitment of Socorro man who killed his father with a pick axe

In State v. Baca, the New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld the criminal commitment of Manuel Baca, who killed his father in Socorro with a pick axe in 2016. The district court found him incompetent to stand trial and ordered him committed to the custody of the New Mexico Department of Health.

In an opinion by Justice Thomson, the Supreme Court held as follows:

  • The New Mexico Constitution (Article VI, section 2) gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all judgments “imposing a sentence of death or life imprisonment,” and the Supreme Court has held that this provision extends its jurisdiction to interlocutory appeals in cases where a life or death sentence could be imposed. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Article VI, section 2 jurisdiction also extends to criminal commitment orders where, as here, they effectively subject the defendant to a life sentence.
  • The Supreme Court then went on to hold that substantial evidence supported the district court’s decision that the defendant acted with the deliberate intent of ending his father’s life without lawful justification or excuse. Among other things, the defendant used a deadly weapon and tried to deceive law enforcement about what happened.
Posted in Jurisdiction, New Mexico Supreme Court, Opinions and Analysis | Tagged | Leave a comment

NMCA: Court-issued protective orders trump the Inspection of Public Records Act

In a domestic relations case, the plaintiff sought records from a guardian ad litem who had been appointed for his son. The guardian ad litem sought and received a protective order, arguing that she was an arm of the court and shouldn’t have to produce documents until her report was complete.

The plaintiff then submitted an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request for the documents to the guardian ad litem and to the district court, which was refused. He sought declaratory judgment against them, but the district court judge hearing that case granted summary judgment to the defendants.

In Dunn v. Brandt, the Court of Appeals affirmed, in an opinion by Judge Vanzi. The Court held:

  • IPRA does not require public agencies or officials to disclose documents in violation of a court order.
  • Viewing IPRA as superseding a court order would violate separation of powers principles, because Rule 1-026(C) gives courts broad discretion to enter protective orders, and statutes may not trump court rules.
  • The judicial deliberation privilege recognized in Pacheco v. Hudson protects from disclosure communications between the district judge and the guardian ad litem, because the latter is an arm of the court.

Although these principles may make sense in many circumstances, I would be concerned that public agencies or officials involved in litigation may attempt to circumvent IPRA via collusive protective orders.

Posted in New Mexico Court of Appeals, Opinions and Analysis | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

NMCA: District court can’t dismiss case under Rule 1-041(E)(1) if plaintiff is in compliance with a scheduling order

In a legal malpractice case, the defendant moved to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 1-041(E)(1) for failure to take significant action to advance the case. The district court denied the motion, and entered a scheduling order. The plaintiff complied with the scheduling order’s deadlines, filing lists of exhibits, fact witnesses, and expert witnesses.

The defendant, however, still wanted out of the case, and filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule 1-041(E)(1) motion. This time, the district court granted the motion.

In Rodriguez v. Sanchez, the Court of Appeals reversed, because Rule 1-041(E)(1) states that “[a]n action or claim shall not be dismissed if the party opposing the motion is in compliance with an order entered pursuant to Rule 1-016[.]” The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s compliance with the scheduling order didn’t matter because the order was entered after the motion to dismiss was filed. All that mattered, according to the defendant, were the plaintiff’s actions to advance the case in the two years before the motion to dismiss was filed.

Judge Hanisee’s opinion rejected the defendant’s arguments because they were based on New Mexico case law interpreting previous versions of Rule 1-041(E), which lacked the language prohibiting dismissal where the plaintiff is in compliance with a scheduling order.

The lesson to be drawn from this is that a lawyer should not rely on case law interpreting a statute or rule without carefully reviewing whether the language of the statute or rule has changed. It may well be that changes in the language will render the earlier case law inoperative.

Posted in New Mexico Court of Appeals, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment