Santiago E. Campos

In Chavez v. Kincaid, the plaintiff filed suit in New Mexico state court in 1996 alleging breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and other claims arising from a business relationship involving the design and manufacture of fireplaces and related intellectual property. Defendants removed the case to federal court in October 1997, asserting exclusive federal jurisdiction under patent laws. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding the removal untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because defendants had notice of potential removability by at least January 1997 yet waited far beyond the 30-day deadline, and that defendants had waived any removal right through their participation in state-court proceedings. The court resolved doubts in favor of remand and left the underlying jurisdictional question for the state court, while noting that costs and fees could be assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a railroad employee's claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for a neck injury sustained while changing a tire on a backhoe at work. The plaintiff alleged that the employer failed to provide proper tools or training. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of negligence because the plaintiff admitted the tools were not defective, there was no proof of a required special tool, and no duty to provide specific training for an experienced worker. The ruling was based on the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding employer negligence under FELA standards.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case arose from a 1994 Business Week article criticizing the American Stock Exchange’s listing practices and focusing on Printron, Inc., a company formerly led by plaintiff Eleanor Schuler; the article discussed Schuler’s prior identity as John Huminik, her involvement in two SEC enforcement actions resolved by consent decrees, and the subsequent drop in Printron’s stock price. Schuler sued the publisher for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with contractual relations, and prima facie tort. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Schuler qualified as a public figure who failed to allege actual malice for the defamation claim, that the remaining tort claims were either derivative of the deficient defamation claim or lacked required elements such as improper motive, and that prima facie tort could not be used to circumvent the stricter requirements of established tort doctrines.

free speechtorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Thompson v. City of Albuquerque, plaintiff Jan Thompson, a female veterinarian employed by the city's Animal Services Division, sued the City under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, alleging she was paid less than two male veterinarians working at the Rio Grande Zoo. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. On the Equal Pay Act claim, the court found that the positions were not substantially equal because the zoo veterinarians handled more complex duties involving exotic animals, specialized equipment, research, and publications, while Thompson's role focused primarily on dogs and cats with limited facilities and no major surgeries. On the Title VII claim, although Thompson established a prima facie case of sex-based wage discrimination, the City provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the pay difference, and Thompson failed to show those reasons were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a civil rights action in which the plaintiff alleged national origin, age, and sex discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA against his former employer, Avnet. Avnet moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings based on a 1986 agreement that required arbitration of employment disputes but limited the arbitrator to awarding damages only for breach of contract. The court denied the motion to compel, holding that the agreement's explicit language excluded statutory discrimination claims from arbitration because the arbitrator lacked authority to award other damages. The court reasoned that parties may exclude statutory claims from an arbitration agreement and that doubts about scope must be resolved in favor of arbitration only when the agreement itself covers the dispute. The motion to strike an affidavit was denied as moot.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a high school student's challenge to his long-term suspension for repeatedly wearing sagging pants in violation of a school dress code adopted to address gang activity. The plaintiff, appearing through his mother, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the suspension violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and expression by wearing the pants as a statement of black cultural identity, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights due to inadequate notice of the disciplinary hearing. The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, granted that motion in favor of the school district, and denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. On the First Amendment claim, the court held that wearing sagging pants did not constitute protected speech and that the dress code was a reasonable response to legitimate school safety concerns even if it were expressive. On the due process claim, the court found that the hearing procedures provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard under the circumstances.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff seeking judicial review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' final decision denying Social Security disability insurance benefits, with disputes over the determined onset date of disability due to back problems, head injury, and mental issues, as well as the failure to consider state general assistance disability benefits. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's proposed findings after de novo review and granted the plaintiff's motion to remand for a rehearing. The reasoning centered on ambiguous medical records that prevented precise determination of the onset date without a medical expert's assistance, and the need to evaluate any state agency disability finding even if not binding.

healthcareprocedure

This case involves a tort action brought by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) against former directors of the failed Sandia Federal Savings & Loan Association, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty for approving imprudent loans. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that the statute of limitations had expired or that the complaint failed to allege injury. The court denied the motion, holding that the FIRREA statute of limitations in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14) applied retroactively as a procedural rule, that the claims had not expired under state law at the time of the conservator's appointment, and that the complaint sufficiently pleaded breach of duty and resulting losses to put defendants on notice. The court reasoned that the statute requires selecting the longer limitations period and later accrual date to preserve claims, consistent with congressional intent to maximize recoveries by federal successors to failed institutions.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Margetson v. United Van Lines, Inc., the plaintiff sued the moving company for damage to her valuable household goods during an interstate move and storage, asserting claims of fraud, breach of contract, and unfair trade practices under state law, along with a request for punitive damages. On the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court held that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act preempts state and common law claims for loss or damage to goods shipped under a bill of lading, thereby dismissing those claims and the associated damages requests. The court denied dismissal of the federal claims, concluding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action under the Carmack Amendment, which provides the exclusive remedy for such interstate shipping disputes.

federal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a wrongful death claim arising from a 1987 collision between a train operated by the defendant railroad and a vehicle driven by the plaintiff's decedent at the North Gabaldon crossing in New Mexico. The plaintiff alleged negligence by the railroad in failing to provide adequate warnings at the crossing and in operating the train, while the defendant argued that any state common law duty to install warning devices was preempted by federal law. The court addressed the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the preemption issue, along with related evidentiary motions. It granted partial summary judgment after finding that the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the Highway Safety Act, and associated regulations including the MUTCD expressly preempt state negligence claims by assigning the determination of warning devices at crossings to public agencies with jurisdictional authority rather than to railroads. The court reasoned that Congress explicitly defined the preemptive scope in the FRSA, leaving no room for conflicting state common law rules on this subject.

federal powertorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by individuals previously licensed to sell wares in Albuquerque's Old Town Historic Zone, including out-of-state tribal members and non-Indians, to a city ordinance that restricted such licenses to New Mexico residents who are members of federally recognized tribes, pueblos, or the Navajo Nation. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment declaring the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement on multiple grounds, including violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Commerce Clause. The court granted the motion, ruling that the residency requirement violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause as it infringed on the fundamental right to pursue employment, and that the tribal membership preference failed strict scrutiny under Equal Protection because the city provided no evidence of past discrimination or a narrowly tailored remedy. The court severed the invalid residency language but struck down the ordinance in its entirety.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a former security inspector who sued her employer and supervisors in New Mexico state court, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful discharge, and intentional interference with contractual relations based on a claimed three-year campaign of harassment and retaliation following her 1985 complaint of sex harassment and her 1988 report of a security breach. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because she was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that governed discharge for just cause. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the state-law claims were not subject to complete preemption because they did not rely on or require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and could be resolved independently under state implied-contract and tort principles, as explained in Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a criminal prosecution initiated in municipal court against a U.S. Postal Service supervisor for alleged assault and battery against a subordinate employee, based on a private complaint. The United States removed the matter to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, which permits removal of actions against federal officers for acts under color of office. The complainant filed a pro se motion to remand, arguing the incident was not connected to official duties. The court denied the motion, finding removal proper because the incident occurred at the postal facility between on-duty supervisor and subordinate whose relationship derived solely from their official roles, establishing the required causal connection to federal authority.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a former employee of Furr's, Inc. who sued the company and a supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for alleged sex and pregnancy discrimination, as well as under state tort law for claims including abusive discharge, breach of implied contract, tortious interference, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff alleged she was fired shortly before her pension vested because she was pregnant and married to an employee of a competitor, pursuant to an unwritten policy targeting female employees. The court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing most of the tort claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, while allowing the Title VII claim and the breach of implied contract claim to proceed, based on the allegations taken as true and the legal standards for each cause of action.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves antitrust claims by Texas Utilities Company and its subsidiary against Santa Fe Industries and its subsidiaries, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices, royalties, and terms for coal rights in New Mexico's San Juan Basin and to limit competition in coal production and sales, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and New Mexico law. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the price-fixing claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and raised issues about whether the plaintiffs' damages were too speculative to be recoverable. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint's allegations, if taken as true, sufficiently stated a claim for relief under the applicable legal standards. The court also found genuine issues of material fact regarding the speculative nature of damages at the time the contracts were entered, based on the uncertain royalty rates and quantities involved, and therefore denied summary judgment on that issue as well.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Gulf Oil Corporation and its sublessee challenging a Bureau of Land Management decision, upheld by the Department of the Interior, to readjust royalties and other terms on two 1961 federal coal leases at the end of their initial 20-year period under the Federal Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 1976. The plaintiffs contended that the readjustment was untimely because it was not completed before the anniversary date and that applying the 1976 Act's minimum royalty rate and 10-year readjustment intervals was an improper retroactive change to the original leases. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the leases and the pre-1976 statute expressly permitted readjustment at the 20-year mark, that the 1976 amendments governed the terms effective on the readjustment date without retroactivity, and that the arbitrary-and-capricious claim required further discovery on the completeness of the administrative record.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

This case involves a New Mexico photocopier dealer who sued Toshiba Corporation, its U.S. subsidiary Toshiba America, Inc., an individual corporate officer, and Underwriters Laboratories after the dealer experienced mechanical failures, fires, smoke, and poor copy quality in Toshiba machines purchased starting in 1977. The plaintiff asserted twelve claims including breach of contract and warranties, negligent design and failure to warn, fraud, and products liability theories arising from alleged defects and misrepresentations. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in substantial part, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the individual officer under the corporate shield doctrine because his contacts were solely in a corporate capacity, and that it lacked jurisdiction over the Japanese parent corporation because the subsidiary's forum contacts could not be imputed and the stream-of-commerce theory does not extend to claims for purely economic losses from commercial dealings. The decision rested on due process limits, New Mexico's long-arm statute, and precedents distinguishing tortious personal injury from contract and warranty disputes.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case was an action by the Secretary of Labor against I & J, Inc. and its owners, the Ruttlers, who operated multiple Baskin-Robbins stores, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum-wage and record-keeping provisions and seeking an injunction plus recovery of back wages. The defendants contended their stores were exempt due to individual sales volumes under $250,000 and that they had relied on oral advice from Wage and Hour Division employees stating that incorporation would not alter their exempt status. The court found the business became subject to the FLSA as of the 1974 amendments eliminating the sales-volume exemption, that the good-faith defense under 29 U.S.C. § 259 requires written administrative interpretations rather than oral advice, and that the defendants were therefore liable for minimum wages and record-keeping violations for non-exempt employees such as store managers.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over the 1976 sale of The New Mexican newspaper from plaintiff Robert McKinney to defendant Gannett Co., which included an employment agreement allowing McKinney to retain certain rights and responsibilities at the paper for 5-10 years. McKinney sued for breach of contract and fraud, alleging multiple violations of the employment terms by Gannett and The New Mexican; Gannett and The New Mexican denied the claims and counterclaimed. A jury found for McKinney on all five breach claims and for defendants on fraud, and the court independently reached the same conclusions after trial. The court ordered an accounting of the transaction and granted McKinney the option to rescind the entire deal, including the related Taos News acquisition, upon terms to be set after the accounting, finding the breaches material and the contract components inseparable.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

In Tayyari v. New Mexico State University, Iranian students at NMSU challenged a Regents policy that denied admission or continued enrollment to students whose home governments held or permitted the holding of U.S. hostages, a measure aimed at Iranian students during the 1980 hostage crisis. The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, holding the policy unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision rested on findings that alienage and national origin constitute suspect classifications triggering strict scrutiny, that the policy was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, and that it conflicted with federal immigration authority; jurisdiction was upheld under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

immigrationcivil rights