Bruce D. Black

This case involves two employees at an auto dealership, an autopainter and a bodyman, who were paid on a piece-rate or flat-rate basis for repair jobs and alleged they were required to wait unpaid at the shop for 10-15 hours per week between assignments. They sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act for unpaid waiting time, with one plaintiff also bringing claims under the New Mexico Human Rights Act for retaliation and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for discrimination based on Mexican ancestry. The court denied summary judgment on the wage claims, reasoning that FLSA requires compensation for required waiting time at least at minimum wage and that the exemptions cited by defendants applied only to overtime, not basic wages. It granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim against the individual supervisor but denied it against the employer, and denied summary judgment on the § 1981 claim, finding that the statute covers discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic characteristics.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a medical student with Scoptic Sensitivity Syndrome, a reading disability, who requested testing accommodations from the University of New Mexico and the National Board of Medical Examiners for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1; after his requests were denied or not fully addressed, he failed the exam twice, was placed on academic leave, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and state breach of contract claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. It held that the UNM defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from the § 1983 claims, that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a disability under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act because it did not identify a substantially limiting impairment of a major life activity, and that with no federal claims remaining the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law contract claims.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In Pacheco v. Hopmeier, a high school student sued school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming he was removed from class without consent or suspicion of any crime or rule violation, then handcuffed, searched, and transported to a police station in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on any negligence claim but denied it as to the constitutional claims, while granting plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims. The core reasoning was that the principal ordered the seizure knowing there was neither probable cause, reasonable suspicion, nor consent, thereby setting in motion an unlawful arrest and search.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved David Augustson challenging the ATF's revocation of his federal firearms license for August Arms due to repeated violations of record-keeping requirements under the Gun Control Act, such as improper Form 4473 completions and bound book entries. The court granted summary judgment to the Attorney General, upholding the revocation, after finding that the violations were willful. The reasoning was that Augustson, as the licensee, was responsible for compliance including his employee's actions, that multiple inspections showed repeat violations despite warnings, and that even a single willful violation justifies revocation under the law.

gunsbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a motion to remand a lawsuit originally filed in state court by State Farm against Dunn-Edwards and other defendants for liability arising from fire damage to its insured. The defendants removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but only one defendant participated in the removal notice, with the other later filing a consent to magistrate jurisdiction rather than explicit consent to removal. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the unanimity rule derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1446 requires all properly served defendants to provide timely written consent to removal through a filing with the court. The opinion emphasized that private communications between counsel or subsequent actions do not satisfy the requirement of unambiguous, court-noticed consent within the thirty-day removal period, consistent with the presumption against removal jurisdiction and strict enforcement of procedural rules.

procedure

In Sanders v. DJO, LLC, the plaintiff sued multiple defendants in New Mexico state court alleging products liability and negligence claims after a pain pump implanted during shoulder surgery allegedly caused severe injuries. The defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing that the non-diverse defendant Lovelace Health Systems had been fraudulently joined. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that defendants had not met their heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder because there was a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could prevail on a negligence claim against Lovelace for failing to properly investigate the pain pump. The court applied a standard more deferential than a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, allowing consideration of evidence beyond the pleadings and noting that ultimate dismissal of the claim in state court would not necessarily establish fraudulent joinder.

proceduretorts & liability

The case arose after a small plane made an emergency landing due to engine failure caused by a malfunctioning turbocharger; the plane's owners, Curtis and Curtis, and their insurer, AIG Aviation Insurance, sued the turbocharger manufacturer Kelly Aerospace and the engine manufacturer Avco Corporation, alleging breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose under New Mexico law, along with other claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that the warranty claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 55-2-725, which begins to run upon tender of delivery. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that the breach-of-warranty count was time-barred because the limitation period had expired well before the 2009 filing and could not be extended for policy reasons or latent defects, while also addressing the scope of New Mexico's economic loss rule. The opinion applied the standard for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, requiring the nonmovant to show a genuine issue of material fact.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a detainee at a county detention center who alleged that corrections officers shot him multiple times with a pepper ball gun without warning and later pepper sprayed him in the face, after which he sued the officers and the board of county commissioners for damages under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, citing violations of rights under both the U.S. and New Mexico constitutions. The plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court, contending that the complaint presented only a state-law claim and did not invoke federal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to remand, reasoning that the complaint expressly alleged deprivations of rights secured by the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, so that resolution of the claims necessarily depended on substantial questions of federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a petition for federal habeas corpus relief under the Indian Civil Rights Act by an enrolled tribal member convicted in Tesuque Pueblo Tribal Court of misdemeanors including driving with a suspended license. The petitioner argued violations of rights to confrontation, due process, and counsel after a trial where no prosecution witnesses appeared and the judge relied on prior proceedings and the citation alone. The court dismissed the petition without reaching the merits, holding that the petitioner had failed to exhaust available remedies in tribal court. Core reasoning rested on principles of comity and tribal self-government, which require federal courts to defer until tribal appellate processes are pursued, analogous to exhaustion rules for state prisoners, with no showing that such remedies would be futile.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case is a qui tam action filed in state court by the National Education Association of New Mexico under New Mexico's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act on behalf of the Educational Retirement Board and State Investment Council to recover alleged investment losses from the defendant. The defendant removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, and the plaintiff moved to remand. The court granted remand, ruling that the state and its agencies were real parties in interest and arms of the state rather than political subdivisions, so no diversity jurisdiction existed because states are not citizens under the diversity statute. The reasoning focused on the citizenship of real parties in interest, the extent of state control over the agencies, and relevant Supreme Court precedent distinguishing nominal parties from those with actual interests.

procedure

This case involved a § 1983 lawsuit by Matthew St. John against Alamogordo police officers after they removed him from a movie theater, seized and unloaded his holstered handgun, and patted him down in response to a manager's complaint that the visible firearm was upsetting customers. St. John alleged unreasonable seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution, along with state tort claims for battery and false arrest. The court granted summary judgment to St. John on liability for the Fourth Amendment and state constitutional claims, finding the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity since open carry of a firearm was lawful and no other basis for the stop or pat-down existed, but denied judgment on the battery and false arrest claims. It granted the officers summary judgment on the false arrest claim, denied it on the remaining claims and qualified immunity, and treated the state constitutional claims in tandem with the federal ones.

gunscriminal lawcivil rights

This case involved Barbara Garcia, a former USDA Forest Service employee terminated for alleged misconduct, who sued the agency under Title VII alleging sex and race discrimination as well as retaliation. After the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld her termination in a mixed-case appeal, Garcia had 30 days from February 22, 2008, to file a federal court complaint but did so on April 21, 2008. The court granted the USDA's motion for summary judgment, holding that the filing was untimely under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) and that no extraordinary circumstances, such as agency deception, justified equitable tolling of the deadline. The court also denied Garcia's request to amend her complaint as moot given the timeliness issue.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a Section 1983 lawsuit by Ms. Phillips against probation officers Steve Farmer and Larry Franco, alleging that they violated her Fourth Amendment rights by entering and searching her home without a warrant and detaining her outside during the search. The search occurred after an anonymous tip led officers to her residence, which was listed as the living quarters of her boyfriend, a probationer subject to warrantless searches; officers found drugs and guns, leading to state charges against the boyfriend whose motion to suppress was denied. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that collateral estoppel from the state suppression hearing barred Phillips's claims since she was not a party to that proceeding. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because Phillips was not in privity with her boyfriend and none of the exceptions to non-party preclusion under Taylor v. Sturgell were met, allowing her unlawful search claim to proceed while addressing the seizure claim separately under summary judgment standards.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Romero v. Bernell, petitioners sought to partition a section of land in Taos County, New Mexico, that they owned as tenants in common with the respondent under state statute. The respondent opposed the partition, arguing that the land's primary value was for potential wind farm development and that wind power rights could not be equitably divided like mineral rights. The court granted the petition for partition, reasoning that partition is a favored remedy and a matter of right under New Mexico law that can be denied only on limited grounds such as public policy or waiver, and that wind rights are not analogous to mineral rights in place but instead require reduction to possession, similar to water rights.

propertyprocedure

In Asbury v. Geren, the plaintiff, a former GS-14 employee at White Sands Missile Range who retired at age 56, sued the U.S. Army under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for failing to select him for a temporary promotion in February 2005 and a permanent promotion in August 2005, as well as for creating a hostile work environment due to age. The plaintiff pursued the ADEA's administrative bypass route by filing timely notices of intent to sue with the EEOC but then waited over a year to file the federal lawsuit. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the claims were time-barred. Because the ADEA provision for federal employees contains no express statute of limitations, the court borrowed an appropriate limitations period from an analogous statute and concluded that the delays of 680 days and 489 days after the alleged acts exceeded that period, requiring dismissal of the complaint.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Young, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the interim United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico had been unconstitutionally appointed by the judiciary under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), in violation of separation of powers. The court denied the motion, finding no legal basis for dismissal. It reasoned that Congress has constitutional authority to permit judicial appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys, as historical practice shows such appointments were not exclusively an executive function, and the indictment had been signed by a career Assistant U.S. Attorney appointed by the Attorney General. The court further noted that even an invalid interim appointment would not affect the defendant's basic constitutional rights or require dismissal of the charges.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a minor plaintiff whose Medicaid benefits were terminated by New Mexico after he received a personal-injury settlement placed in a special-needs trust; the state concluded that expenditures from the trust, including costs for a family home, furnishings, farm equipment, and a salary to the plaintiff's mother as caretaker, were not made solely for the plaintiff's benefit. Plaintiff brought this § 1983 action challenging the termination, after an administrative law judge upheld the state's decision. The court addressed numerous motions, including cross-motions for summary judgment, and focused on the legal question of whether federal Medicaid law permits a state to review the actual use of trust funds rather than deferring entirely to the trustee. The court reasoned that under OBRA '93 and related regulations, a state may examine expenditures to ensure the trust is administered for the sole benefit of the beneficiary when determining ongoing Medicaid eligibility.

healthcarecivil rightsfederal power

In United States v. Rose, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the interim United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico had been unconstitutionally appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) in violation of separation of powers. The court denied the motion, finding it without legal justification. The core reasoning is that Congress possesses constitutional authority to permit judicial appointment of interim United States Attorneys, supported by historical practice at the founding era when several states and the original Judiciary Act allowed judges or legislatures to select prosecutors rather than placing the function exclusively in the executive branch. The court further observed that the indictment had been signed by a career Assistant United States Attorney ultimately responsible to the Attorney General.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involved radiologists and their professional associations suing a hospital, its parent company, and several doctors, alleging a conspiracy to terminate their radiology services contract and suspend privileges through negative peer reviews and other actions, in violation of the Sherman Act and New Mexico Antitrust Act, with the aim of reducing competition in the relevant market of southern New Mexico and western Texas. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the antitrust count. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to allege enough facts to state a plausible claim of conspiracy or restraint of trade under the Twombly pleading standard, as the assertions amounted to labels and conclusions without showing an agreement or anticompetitive effects.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved a Canadian citizen charged with attempting to destroy the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and an energy facility using explosives, along with related firearm and aiding-and-abetting counts, based on conduct that occurred entirely while he was located in Canada. The defendant moved to dismiss those counts for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the relevant federal statutes do not reach extraterritorial conduct and that applying them would violate due process. The court denied the motion, finding that Congress intended the statutes to apply extraterritorially under the protective principle of international law because the alleged acts threatened U.S. energy and economic security, and that the nexus between the conduct and the United States was sufficient to satisfy due process.

criminal lawfederal power