Judith C. Herrera

This case involved a challenge by the Los Alamos Study Group under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration's (DOE/NNSA) environmental review of the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The plaintiff alleged that substantial changes to the project since the 2003 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 2004 Record of Decision required preparation of a new or supplemental EIS addressing connected actions, mitigation measures, and resource commitments, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to halt further project investments. The defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including that claims were time-barred, not ripe, moot, or prudentially moot. The court reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendation de novo, held hearings, and denied the plaintiff's objections, dismissing the complaint in its entirety under the doctrine of prudential mootness without reaching the motion for preliminary injunction or other issues. The core reasoning centered on prudential considerations counseling against judicial intervention despite the ongoing project developments.

environmentfederal power

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Molly Rizzi's challenge to defendant Hartford's termination of her long-term disability benefits under a group policy offered through her former employer, Sprint. Hartford initially approved the benefits based on Rizzi's reported pain and limitations but later discontinued them after an investigation that included medical reviews and surveillance footage showing her performing daily activities. The court reviewed the denial under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard because the plan granted Hartford discretionary authority. It upheld the termination, finding that Hartford's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and was reasonable.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The United States sued Reinhold Sommerstedt seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after he recorded multiple documents in New Mexico counties purporting to impose commercial liabilities, judgments, and administrative remedies on federal judges and IRS employees involved in enforcing tax laws against him. Sommerstedt moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the United States of America is a distinct entity from the United States and that the case was moot due to his attempted rescissions. The court denied the motion, holding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345 and 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a), that the case was not moot, and that the documents had no basis in federal or state law. It declared the specific filings null and void and directed the United States to submit a proposed order for injunctive relief prohibiting Sommerstedt from filing similar documents without court permission.

taxesfederal power

The case involved four former employees of the New Mexico Lottery Authority who sued their employer and supervisors after being laid off or resigning, alleging retaliation for agreeing to testify in support of a former colleague's wrongful termination lawsuit. The plaintiffs asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of a property interest in continued employment without due process and for First Amendment retaliation, along with state claims for breach of employment contract and retaliatory discharge. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all claims. The reasoning centered on the absence of a protected property interest in at-will employment, insufficient evidence that working conditions constituted constructive discharge or that the layoff was pretextual, and lack of a causal link between the protected speech and the adverse employment actions.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage under a commercial auto insurance policy issued by Progressive to Weed Warrior Services. Mrs. Etcheverry, a named driver on the policy, sought to reform the $100,000 UM/UIM limits to $1 million after settling with the tortfeasor for $100,000, arguing that New Mexico law required a written rejection of higher limits matching the policy's liability coverage. Progressive contended that Mrs. Etcheverry was not entitled to any coverage and opposed reformation. The court denied both parties' summary judgment motions but held that the policy would be enforced as written without reformation, as the relevant statute did not mandate a written waiver in these circumstances and its remedial purpose was already fulfilled. Because the $100,000 UM/UIM coverage was offset by the tortfeasor settlement, Progressive owed no additional amount.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a challenge by conservation groups, ranchers, and Native American interests to the Bureau of Land Management's approval of a revised Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the San Juan Basin in northwest New Mexico, which authorized increased oil and gas development over a 20-year period. Plaintiffs argued that the BLM violated NEPA, NHPA, and FLPMA by failing to adequately consider alternatives that would provide greater environmental and cultural protections and by insufficiently consulting with affected parties. The court reviewed the agency's decision-making process under the arbitrary and capricious standard to determine whether it considered all legally relevant factors. After examining the administrative record, the court concluded that the BLM had acted in accordance with applicable law and denied the petition for review.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, present and former City employees sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming the City's dual calculation method for overtime pay—using the higher of FLSA or collective bargaining agreement computations—violated the statute by improperly incorporating or excluding certain payments and hours. After partial summary judgment and a bench trial, the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law resolving the claims. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, contending they had been prevented from presenting evidence on the dual-calculation methodology and the overtime multiplier because of their understanding of the earlier rulings. The court denied the motion, holding that the proffered evidence was irrelevant or would not alter the outcome on the merits, that some matters fell outside the FLSA claims, and that the multiplier issue was properly raised on appeal rather than in a new-trial motion.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Tommy Ray Hook, an employee at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who alleged retaliation by his supervisors for reporting financial irregularities, testifying in legal proceedings, and providing information about mismanagement and fraud at the lab. The defendants moved for summary judgment on Hook's claims under the First Amendment via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Whistleblower Protection Act, asserting qualified immunity. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims after finding Hook failed to show violation of a clearly established constitutional right, but denied summary judgment on the state whistleblower claim. The decision applied the two-part qualified immunity test under which the plaintiff must demonstrate both a rights violation and that the right was clearly established by existing precedent.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a former employee of Vantage Builders, Inc. (and related entities) who sued for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging her duties as Operations Manager and later Assistant Controller were primarily clerical. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff qualified as a bona fide executive employee exempt from overtime. The court granted the motion, concluding that the plaintiff’s primary duty consisted of management of a recognized department, that she customarily and regularly directed the work of two or more other employees, and that her recommendations on personnel matters such as hiring and firing were given particular weight. The decision applied both pre- and post-2004 FLSA regulations to the undisputed facts regarding her job functions and supervisory role.

labor & employment

In this case, defendants Danuel Quaintance, Mary Quaintance, and Joseph Butts were charged with possession and conspiracy to distribute large quantities of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. They moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Act substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because marijuana is a sacrament in their Church of Cognizance. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion. It applied the factors from United States v. Meyers and concluded that the defendants' beliefs were secular and philosophical rather than religious, and that the beliefs were not sincerely held given the large quantities involved and other evidence of a lifestyle choice. The parties had limited the ruling to the substantial burden element under RFRA.

criminal lawreligious liberty