Curtis LeRoy Hansen

This case involves an insurance company's subrogation claim against the manufacturers of an electric heater and its thermal control component, seeking recovery for payments made after a home fire allegedly caused by the heater. The court denied in part Square D Company's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues on whether the heater had a design defect, but granted summary judgment to Square D on claims based on failure to warn. It granted Therm-O-Disc's motion for summary judgment in full, concluding that the plaintiff lacked evidence showing the thermal control was defective or that the company breached any duty of care. The rulings rested on the plaintiff's experts failing to identify defects, establish causation, or provide sufficient proof under products liability standards for negligence or strict liability.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff obstetrician-gynecologist who sought short-term and long-term disability benefits from defendant Standard Insurance Company after suffering pancreatitis during pregnancy and undergoing gallbladder removal surgery; her claim was initially denied but partially reversed for four days of benefits. After filing suit under ERISA, which was removed to federal court, the court addressed motions regarding the record and judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to supplement the record and granted the defendant's motion for judgment, finding that the denial of benefits was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence under the arbitrary and capricious standard, as medical records lacked objective findings supporting disability beyond the plaintiff's subjective complaints of fatigue.

healthcarebusiness & regulatorylabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff who filed state-law claims in New Mexico state court against Standard Insurance Company and its agent Dan Cobb for denial of disability benefits under employer-provided insurance policies. Standard removed the action to federal court on the ground that the claims were governed by ERISA rather than state law. The court held that the policies met all elements of an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan, thereby creating federal subject-matter jurisdiction and preempting the state claims. It granted Cobb's motion to dismiss the claims against him individually, partially granted and denied Standard's motion regarding extra-contractual damages, and denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint as futile.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns non-union public employees of the City of Albuquerque who challenged the union's collection of fair share fees from them, alleging deficiencies in the required notice and improper inclusion of certain expenses. On remand from the Tenth Circuit, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in part, holding that the original fee notice violated their rights because it lacked independent auditor verification and a proper report as required by Hudson, though nominal damages had already been awarded for this. The court further found that the defendants failed to prove which portions of the fees were chargeable for collective bargaining purposes, entitling the plaintiffs to a full refund, and ruled that the union's indemnification of the city for related liabilities was void as contrary to public policy.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

This case, a class action by non-union public employees, arises from the same facts as Wessel v. City of Albuquerque and challenges the adequacy of notices for fair share fees deducted from non-members, along with related indemnification clauses in union agreements with the City of Albuquerque. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring that the original notices violated their constitutional rights by omitting independent auditor verification and proper allocation details, awarding nominal damages of one dollar, voiding the indemnification clauses, and ordering refunds of collected fees. It denied summary judgment on punitive damages and certain other claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendants' efforts to protect non-members' rights. The decisions rest on Tenth Circuit precedent from Wessel, which applied Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson requirements for sufficient notice to allow non-members to object to fees, and on the plaintiffs' status as a separate class not bound by the prior suit's limits on relief.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfree speech

This case involved rig hands who worked on oil and gas wells suing their employer, Aztec Well Servicing Co., under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid compensation for travel time to and from well sites, including overtime when travel extended their workweeks beyond 40 hours. After a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, the court granted the defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, vacating the prior judgment on liability. The court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act excludes from compensation time spent traveling to and from the actual place of performance of principal activities, as well as preliminary or postliminary activities, unless they are integral and indispensable to those activities. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, showed only that the workers were sometimes required to travel with their supervisors and performed no compensable work en route, making the travel an ordinary, non-compensable incident of employment.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Martinez v. United States, the plaintiff alleged that she was raped by a Laguna Police Officer while being transported between detention centers and brought claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence in hiring, supervision, and policies regarding female prisoners, as well as for intentional assault and battery. The court had previously dismissed the assault and battery count because the officer did not qualify as an investigative or law enforcement officer under the statute. It then granted the government's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding they arose out of the excluded intentional tort and were therefore barred by the FTCA's intentional tort exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), which deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the same grounds and dismissed the entire action with prejudice.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In this case, the Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association and related plaintiffs challenged the Bureau of Land Management's 1998 closure of twelve routes in the Robledo Mountains Wilderness Study Area to vehicular traffic, seeking to quiet title to alleged public easements or roads under Revised Statute 2477, along with review of the administrative decisions and injunctive relief. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it was time-barred by the Quiet Title Act's twelve-year statute of limitations. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs or their predecessors knew or should have known of the United States' claim to the land as roadless no later than the 1983 IBLA decision affirming the BLM's wilderness designation and related Federal Register notices, rather than only upon the physical closures in 1998. The court noted that the QTA provides the exclusive remedy and that the limitations period runs from knowledge of the claim's existence, not its enforcement.

environmentpropertyfederal powerprocedure

This case involves two students with disabilities, Ashley Bitsilly and Larry Barnell, who attended tribally controlled schools and alleged that the Bureau of Indian Affairs violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by failing to supervise, monitor, or ensure the schools provided a free appropriate public education and due process hearings. The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment, compensatory education, and broad injunctive relief against the BIA, claiming it had supervisory responsibilities similar to a state educational agency. The BIA moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing, mootness, failure to state a claim, and that the Tribally Controlled Schools Act limited its authority over such schools. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that the plaintiffs lacked standing for injunctive relief due to insufficient likelihood of future injury while finding potential standing for declaratory claims tied to past violations.

civil rightsfederal power

The case concerns a lawsuit by the Valley Community Preservation Commission and individual plaintiffs seeking to enjoin construction of a 37.5-mile federal-aid highway project converting U.S. 70 into a four-lane road through New Mexico's Hondo River Valley, on grounds that the Federal Highway Administration violated Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and NEPA by inadequately assessing impacts on historic and natural resources. The district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction after transfer from the District of Columbia. Under the four-part test for injunctive relief and APA review, the court found plaintiffs unlikely to prevail on the merits because the agency had taken the required hard look at environmental consequences through multiple environmental impact statements, coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer, and considered alternatives and mitigation; the balance of harms and public interest, including safety benefits, did not support emergency relief.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case, originally filed in 1990, involves a class action by the Ramah Navajo Chapter and other tribal entities against the Bureau of Indian Affairs seeking reimbursement for underpaid indirect costs and contract support costs under Indian Self-Determination Act contracts for certain fiscal years. The plaintiffs challenged the BIA's calculation methods for these costs, which had led to shortfalls absorbed by the tribes. After an initial partial settlement and reversal on appeal of a summary judgment ruling, the parties reached a Second Partial Settlement Agreement covering the Shortfall claim for FY 1992-1993 and the DCSC claim for FY 1993-1994. The court approved the agreement, finding it in the best interest of the class with no objections filed, dismissed the settled claims with prejudice, and awarded class counsel $5.8 million in attorney's fees plus costs and interest to be paid from the settlement fund, applying the percentage method and Johnson factors for fee determination.

civil rightsfederal power

The City of Albuquerque sued the Department of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the agency violated Executive Order 12072 by soliciting bids and selecting office space for a federal office outside the city's centralized business area. The DOI moved to dismiss, arguing that the claim was a bid protest governed by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, which after a 2001 sunset clause grants exclusive jurisdiction over such matters to the Court of Federal Claims. The court examined whether the action challenged the solicitation and award procedures in a federal procurement, concluding that it fell squarely under the ADRA rather than the general APA. Because the ADRA preempts prior APA-based jurisdiction and no residual authority remained in district courts, the court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Garcia v. Reed, plaintiffs sued nurse anesthetist Linda Reed and her employer for medical negligence and wrongful death arising from care at a federal hospital. Reed sought certification under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(3) to establish that she was a federal employee acting within the scope of her employment, which would substitute the United States as defendant and potentially provide immunity from suit in state court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denied Reed's request for additional discovery, and ruled that she was an independent contractor rather than a federal employee. The decision rested on contract language explicitly designating the relationship as one of independent contractor, application of the multi-factor test from Lilly v. Fieldstone, and the conclusion that surgeon oversight was consistent with contractor status and did not create a factual issue requiring further discovery. The court therefore denied certification, denied the pending motion for partial summary judgment as moot, and remanded the case to state court.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves plaintiffs suing in diversity for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty after suffering injuries while hitching a fifth-wheel trailer to their truck, with defendant Reese Products later modifying its hitch instructions, warnings, and capacity rating. The court addressed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of these post-accident changes under rules governing subsequent remedial measures. It determined that New Mexico Rule of Evidence 11-407, rather than the federal rule, controls in this diversity action and extends to product liability claims to avoid discouraging safety improvements. The court granted the motion in part, barring the evidence to prove defect or need for warning but allowing potential use for impeachment depending on trial testimony.

proceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Tan, the defendant faced federal charges of second-degree murder and assault resulting in serious bodily injury arising from a drunk-driving collision that killed one victim and injured another. The defendant moved to exclude evidence of his prior DWI convictions and tribal-court guilty pleas from the same incident, arguing they were inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. The district court granted the motion in limine, holding that the prior acts were not offered for a proper purpose because second-degree murder is a general-intent crime for which malice is shown by reckless disregard rather than specific intent, rendering the evidence's probative value substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and propensity misuse.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves claims brought on behalf of a three-year-old child, M.W., who suffered serious injuries while in state foster care after CYFD placed her with foster parents alleged to have abused her. The plaintiff asserted that multiple CYFD social worker defendants violated the child's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by failing to exercise professional judgment in licensing the foster parents, placing the child in the home, monitoring her placement, investigating abuse reports, and protecting her from harm. The court applied the professional judgment standard from Youngberg v. Romeo, balancing the child's liberty interests against state interests, and determined that most defendants had exercised appropriate professional judgment or were entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the majority of the social worker defendants and granted in part and denied in part the motions of two others.

civil rightsfamily law

The case was a citizen suit under the Endangered Species Act in which plaintiffs sought to compel the Secretary of the Interior to issue a final determination listing the Arkansas River shiner as endangered and designating its critical habitat by statutory deadlines. After the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the species as threatened and declined critical habitat designation, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, leaving only the question of litigation costs and attorney fees. The court denied the motion for fees, applying the Tenth Circuit's catalyst test under the ESA's fee-shifting provision, which requires plaintiffs to show both that the lawsuit was causally linked to the relief obtained and that the agency's conduct was required by law. The court found that the timing and sequence of events did not establish the suit as a substantial factor or necessary catalyst for the agency's final action.

environment

This case involved a class action by the Ramah Navajo Chapter and other tribal entities against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, alleging that the agency's formula for calculating indirect costs under Indian Self-Determination Act contracts caused underpayments that tribes had to cover from their own budgets. After the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's initial summary judgment for the defendants, the parties negotiated a partial settlement agreement providing for reimbursement payments and other relief. The court approved the agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class, determining that remaining objections regarding potential Judgment Fund reimbursement were either resolved, not ripe, or addressed by the defendants' commitments, and it granted class counsel a partial award of attorneys' fees and costs while retaining jurisdiction over distribution and enforcement.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In Weekoty v. United States, a discovery dispute arose after the death of a patient under the care of a U.S. Health Service physician, with the plaintiff seeking production of documents from a morbidity and mortality review conducted by the clinic. The magistrate judge granted the motion to compel, concluding there was no federally recognized self-critical analysis privilege and that neither the deliberative process privilege nor a New Mexico state peer review statute applied. On objection, the district court sustained the government's position, reversed the magistrate, and held that the documents were protected from discovery under a federal common law self-critical analysis privilege. The court reasoned that such protection for peer review materials is justified by reason and experience to encourage candid self-evaluation in medical settings, drawing support from analogous privileges and state laws, and found it unnecessary to address the state statute separately.

procedurehealthcaretorts & liability

This case involved an inmate at a privately operated women's prison who sued a corrections officer employed by the private company, alleging that he raped her in violation of her Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and committed intentional torts. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing primarily that as a private employee he was not acting under color of state law and thus could not be liable under § 1983. The court denied the motion, holding that the officer performed a traditional governmental function by serving as a prison guard with authority over inmates, including the power to enter cells, and that he used that authority in committing the assault, satisfying the state-action requirement. The court distinguished precedents involving state employees acting outside their duties and noted that private actors exercising state-delegated powers can be subject to constitutional claims.

civil rightstorts & liability