The case involves local timber harvesting companies and residents near the Vallecitos Federal Sustained Yield Unit in New Mexico's Carson National Forest suing the U.S. Forest Service and its officials. Plaintiffs alleged mismanagement of the unit under the Sustained Yield Forest Management Act and related laws, violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, and retaliatory actions including criminal investigations that infringed on their constitutional rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, rejecting Bivens damages claims against officials in their personal capacities for agency mismanagement actions because the APA provides an adequate alternative remedy, but allowing Bivens claims related to criminal investigations and an antitrust accusation, along with the section 1981 claim, to proceed. It also granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add allegations of post-filing retaliation. The decision rested on distinctions between reviewable agency actions under the APA and individual official misconduct not covered by that framework.
This case involved Title VII employment discrimination claims brought by several plaintiffs against defendants in the District of New Mexico. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims of four plaintiffs, arguing that the EEOC had improperly issued right-to-sue letters before the expiration of the 180-day period specified in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the EEOC regulation permitting early issuance of such letters based on administrative infeasibility was invalid because it conflicted with the statute's requirement that plaintiffs wait 180 days unless the charge is dismissed. The court denied the defendants' motion for separate trials, as only two plaintiffs remained after the dismissals and their claims shared sufficient commonality for a single trial.
This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Servants of the Paraclete against its insurers St. Paul, Catholic Mutual, and Great American, seeking to establish duties to defend and indemnify in underlying lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by a former priest treated at its facility. Following an earlier ruling that addressed the insurers' duties in the New Mexico and Minnesota actions, the court here resolves numerous pending motions, including requests to strike affidavits, amend prior judgments, alter summary judgment orders, and enter partial final judgment. The court denies most motions but grants in part those concerning the striking of one affidavit under Rule 56(e), clarification of Catholic Mutual's liability, and reconsideration of St. Paul's summary judgment denial. Core reasoning relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence governing affidavits, settlement admissibility under Rule 408, and established insurance principles distinguishing duties to defend from indemnification while addressing proof of damages from breach.
This case involves plaintiff Yvonne Martinez suing defendant Albuquerque Collection Services, Inc. (ACS), a debt collection agency, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) arising from its efforts to collect three medical debts referred by creditors. The disputes centered on ACS's practices including mailed notices, telephone calls, form letters on attorney letterhead, and filing a collection lawsuit in which accounts were described as "open" to seek attorney fees, gross receipts tax, and interest. On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court granted the plaintiff's motion in part and the defendant's cross-motion in part, specifically finding that representing the accounts as "open" to recover attorney fees constituted a false representation and an attempt to collect amounts not permitted by law under FDCPA sections 1692e(2) and 1692f(1).
The case centered on a dispute over the termination of an exclusive insurance agency program known as COMPAR run by subsidiaries of CIGNA Corporation, with plaintiffs alleging harm from the program's end in the early 1990s. CIGNA moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction in New Mexico, as it had no offices, employees, or direct contracts in the state. The court granted the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that CIGNA maintained corporate separateness from its subsidiaries under New Mexico law, so the subsidiaries' activities did not establish minimum contacts or allow jurisdiction over the parent through alter ego or agency theories, and CIGNA otherwise lacked independent contacts with the forum.
In Tafoya v. Bobroff, the plaintiff, as personal representative of the decedent, sued the Albuquerque Public School Board and its employees after the decedent collapsed and died from a heart attack during a required physical agility test for a security officer position, despite having disclosed health conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the New Mexico Tort Claims Act provided immunity from negligence claims that was not waived by the relevant sections, as the actions involved administrative functions rather than operation or maintenance of premises. Additionally, the court dismissed claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and constitutional provisions because the plaintiff failed to allege intentional discrimination or violations of due process rights, and other statutory claims like those under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 did not apply to disability discrimination.
