Howard C. Bratton

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.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

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.

environmentpropertyprocedurefederal power

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.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

civil rightsprocedurefamily law

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.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a civil rights lawsuit brought by the Sitarz family against multiple law enforcement officers, agencies, and private parties, alleging violations of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights during a December 1981 incident in New Mexico. The plaintiffs claimed they were forcibly stopped at a police roadblock, assaulted at gunpoint, and detained after their truck was wrongly reported as stolen during an unauthorized repossession attempt. Nine defendants who were added in 1985 via amendment to replace John Doe placeholders moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, holding that the three-year statute of limitations under New Mexico law barred the claims because the second amended complaint did not relate back to the original 1983 filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), as the new defendants lacked timely notice of the suit. The court rejected arguments that prior magistrate orders or the original complaint's broad John Doe descriptions preserved the claims against these defendants.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's ruling that a state court judgment against William Wallace for embezzlement was not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The underlying dispute concerned funds allegedly entrusted to Wallace for purchasing stereo equipment, which the state court found he had intentionally embezzled, awarding actual and punitive damages. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that collateral estoppel applied because the state court's findings on embezzlement used standards identical to those in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), the issue was actually litigated, and it was essential to the state court outcome. The court noted that while res judicata does not bar bankruptcy review of dischargeability, collateral estoppel can bind factual determinations made under matching legal standards.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involved claims by Jordache Enterprises, a major jeans manufacturer, that Hogg Wyld's use of the 'Lardashe' mark and a pig-pocket design on its jeans for larger women infringed Jordache's trademarks (including the word mark and horse-head logo) under the federal Lanham Act, common law, and New Mexico trademark and anti-dilution statutes. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the defendants on all claims and the counterclaim, finding no likelihood of consumer confusion as to source or affiliation because the marks and trade dress were not substantially similar and the products targeted different market segments. The court also held that the 'Lardashe' name was a harmless parody that did not dilute or tarnish Jordache's marks under the New Mexico anti-dilution statute, as it created no unwholesome association.

business & regulatory

The case involved a former employee of Furr’s, Inc. who sued after his group health insurance coverage under a collective bargaining agreement was terminated without notice of conversion rights, alleging a violation of New Mexico state law requiring such notice to employees. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was preempted by federal labor law under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or required exhaustion of grievance procedures in the union contract. The court denied the motion, holding that the state-law claim was not preempted because it did not substantially depend on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement and lacked the contract-tort overlap seen in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck. Because the action arose purely under state law, the court concluded it lacked federal jurisdiction and remanded the case to New Mexico state court.

labor & employmenthealthcarefederal power

This case concerns debtors in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding who had assumed a real estate contract to purchase approximately 800 acres of land but defaulted on monthly payments after making 37 installments. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the contract was executory under 11 U.S.C. § 365, requiring the debtors-in-possession to assume or reject it by a set deadline, and the District Court affirmed those orders on appeal. The core reasoning is that the contract meets the legislative history definition of an executory contract because performance remains due on both sides (full payment by the buyer and delivery of the deed by the seller), and New Mexico law treats such agreements as uncompleted contracts for the sale of land rather than security devices or mortgages.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Pepper v. Alexander, a mother sued New Mexico Department of Human Services employees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, alleging that the defendants wrongfully interfered with her efforts to reunite with her children, leading to the termination of her parental rights and causing emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motions, dismissing the case. It reasoned that the plaintiff's § 1983 claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations or by absolute immunity for prosecutorial actions, that due process had been provided through state court hearings and appeals so no constitutional deprivation occurred, that the § 1985 claim failed for lack of alleged class-based discriminatory animus, and that the tort claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

civil rightsfamily lawproceduretorts & liability

The City of El Paso sued New Mexico state officials seeking a declaratory judgment that a state statute embargoing the export of groundwater violated the Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce. After an initial ruling finding the embargo unconstitutional, the New Mexico legislature repealed the embargo statute via S.B. 295 and enacted a two-year moratorium on certain new groundwater appropriations via H.B. 12, leading the Tenth Circuit to vacate the prior judgment and remand for reconsideration in light of the changes. The court addressed issues of mootness regarding prior rulings on the Rio Grande Compact and state constitution, and examined the facial constitutionality of the new statutes under Commerce Clause precedents such as Sporhase v. Nebraska, noting that S.B. 295 conditions exports on findings related to conservation, public welfare, and in-state shortages while H.B. 12 imposes a temporary stay on appropriations in the Rio Grande basin.

environmentfederal powerpropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved debtors who obtained loans from a bank by misrepresenting their purpose and security, then sought to discharge those debts through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. The Bankruptcy Court denied confirmation, finding the plan was not proposed in good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) due to the nature of the debts, which would have been non-dischargeable in a Chapter 7 proceeding. On appeal, the district court affirmed the denial after reviewing the record under the multi-factor test from Flygare v. Boulden, noting that the bankruptcy judge had considered relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis rather than applying a per se rule. The court concluded that substantial weight given to the debt's character did not indicate failure to weigh other factors, and the decision was supported by the evidence.

procedure

This case involves a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the plaintiff against the City of Farmington and its police officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force. The defendants sought to implead Genevieve Anaya as a third-party defendant, claiming she was a joint tortfeasor or primary wrongdoer entitled to contribution or indemnity. The court denied the motion for leave to file the amended third-party complaint, reasoning that federal common law does not recognize a right to contribution or indemnity among § 1983 co-defendants, state contribution laws do not apply, and adding the claim would complicate proceedings and potentially prejudice the plaintiff. Defendants remain free to pursue such claims in a separate action after judgment.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned two permittees under U.S. Forest Service grazing permits on the Santa Fe National Forest who challenged the agency's 1983 addition of a 'bull rule' to their permits. The rule required non-members of a recognized local livestock association to furnish their own bulls (counted against their permitted cattle numbers) while allowing members to pay fees for association bulls that were permitted separately. The court ruled for the defendants, finding the rule valid. It held that 36 C.F.R. § 222.7 authorized the Forest Service to adopt special rules proposed by local associations, that the distinction between members and non-members was rationally related to legitimate resource-management goals, and that the Forest Supervisor's review satisfied due-process requirements without infringing equal-protection rights.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's ruling on the dischargeability of a debt owed by Brown to Martino. The debt stemmed from a state court judgment based on a settlement of a breach of contract claim, where Brown, a contractor, failed to pay subcontractors with funds provided by Martino. The court decided to affirm the bankruptcy court's judgment, holding that the debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) as it arose from misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. The core reasoning was that bankruptcy courts may examine the underlying facts of a settlement judgment to determine dischargeability, the stipulated amount is res judicata, and no intent is required for such a finding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the interpretation of an indefinite price escalator clause in a 1971 amendment to a 1961 gas sales contract between the City of Farmington and Amoco Gas Company, which tied price adjustments to Federal Power Commission area rates for gas of a specific contract vintage in the San Juan Basin. The court determined that the clause incorporated the FPC's vintaging system and subsequent regulatory changes, allowing Amoco to collect escalated prices under later FPC orders and the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) provisions applicable to that vintage, including a 1.5 cent differential. It held that Amoco was authorized to charge specific base rates from 1974 to 1981 reflecting those adjustments and that Farmington was entitled to a refund for any excess amounts paid. The reasoning focused on the parties' intent at contracting, as shown by the clause language referencing FPC area prices, contract vintage, and the regulatory context of the era.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Kantak v. Fiato, the Kantaks appealed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of their Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, which they had filed to address debts from a housebuilding venture amid ongoing state court litigation over whether partnership assets existed with appellee Fiato. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case after a confirmation hearing, citing defects in the proposed repayment plan, including use of assets with unclear title due to the pending partnership dispute, violation of IRS priority rights, and failure to commit future income. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the bankruptcy court had authority under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) to dismiss for cause even without a formal party motion and that sufficient cause existed because the debtors lacked clear title to the assets proposed for creditor payments. The court noted that additional grounds like plan compliance with § 1322 were not necessary to reach once cause for dismissal was established.

federal powerprocedurepropertytaxes

This case involved the City of El Paso, Texas, and related plaintiffs challenging New Mexico's prohibition on exporting groundwater out of state, including from the Hueco and Mesilla Bolsons, after the New Mexico State Engineer denied permit applications on constitutional and statutory grounds. The court held that the New Mexico ground water embargo violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It reasoned that the embargo functions as an absolute barrier to interstate commerce in water, a commodity subject to regulation under the Clause, consistent with the Supreme Court's analysis in Sporhase v. Nebraska, even while acknowledging New Mexico's legitimate interest in retaining water for in-state use.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory