In Noland v. City of Albuquerque, plaintiff James S. Noland sued the City of Albuquerque and several individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging race and religious discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination related to his employment at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center. The defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of nepotism favoring the Sisneros family, racial and religious epithets by coworkers, and the disparate impact of employee terminations during the transition to county management. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the evidence is relevant to proving the discrimination claims under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, and that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice or jury confusion.
In Howell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, a landowner challenged the Corps' authority to issue a cease-and-desist letter determining that his property contained wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and prohibiting further fill activity without a permit. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the property was not wetlands and that the Corps lacked jurisdiction. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that the Clean Water Act permits judicial review only after civil penalties are assessed or an enforcement action is brought, that the agency action was not ripe because the Corps had not completed its wetland delineation or permitting process and no concrete effects had occurred, and that the plaintiff must first exhaust administrative remedies through the permitting process to allow the agency to develop a factual record using its expertise.
This case was a federal copyright infringement action in which plaintiffs alleged that their musical compositions were broadcast without authorization on three radio stations owned by corporate defendants. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the validity and ownership of the copyrights, the public performances for profit, and the absence of permission. The core reasoning was that copyright registration certificates established the first three required elements, defendants did not contest the broadcasts or economic purpose (except for one song where substantial portions were still used), and the individual defendant was vicariously liable due to his control and financial interest in the stations. Issues of damages, costs, fees, and willfulness were reserved for trial.
This case is an antitrust lawsuit brought by licensed chiropractors against Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New Mexico and the New Mexico Medical Society, alleging a conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act to refuse health insurance coverage for chiropractic services while covering equivalent treatments by medical or osteopathic physicians. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending there was no conspiracy and no restraint of trade due to insufficient market power. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the parties shared a common scheme, based on evidence of physician influence over Blue Cross's board and endorsement requirements tied to the medical society, as well as Blue Cross's 25-30% market share combined with data on limited new competitor success and incentives from its nonprofit status that could indicate market power.
The case was a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the owner of a state-licensed day care center against HSD and other state officials, alleging that temporary removal of subsidized children and suspension of Title XX funds pending a child abuse investigation violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding that no constitutional violation occurred. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court reasoned that the plaintiff's interest in continued participation was outweighed by the government's compelling interest in child safety, that the risk of erroneous deprivation was low given the investigation and subsequent hearing, and that a full predeprivation hearing was not required before acting on the allegations.
This case is a civil rights lawsuit brought by a former Albuquerque Police Department employee alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and sex discrimination by department employees and supervisors. The plaintiff asserted federal claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, along with related claims under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, the New Mexico Constitution, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing the § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims to proceed because the plaintiff sufficiently alleged independent constitutional violations (such as equal protection) that are not precluded by Title VII based on its legislative history, while dismissing the official-capacity conspiracy claim under § 1985(3) and declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over all state-law claims due to novel and unsettled questions of New Mexico law.
