Allred v. N.M. Dep't of Transp.
34,226 34,461
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- The Allred family sued NMDOT in 2011 for negligence, inverse condemnation, injunctive relief, and damages after sediment aggradation at the Whitewater Creek Bridge increased flood risk.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring NMDOT to update its PCN, obtain agency approvals, submit a construction/maintenance plan, and diligently pursue creek maintenance to completion.
- Parties negotiated a Settlement Agreement (Dec. 2012) calling for entry of a Stipulated Permanent Injunction, dismissal of remaining claims, and an arbitration clause for settlement-breach disputes. The court entered a Permanent Injunction (Jan. 2013) and an Order of Dismissal with prejudice (Feb. 2013).
- In Aug.–Sept. 2013 NMDOT began maintenance but halted work before completion; a significant rain event on Sept. 14 overtopped the bridge and dikes, damaging Allreds’ property.
- Allreds moved to enforce the Permanent Injunction and sought sanctions; the district court found NMDOT in civil contempt, awarded compensatory sanctions of $408,764 and attorney fees $54,301.41. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced damages by $15,000 (for pre-event work) and deemed the fee/cost issues abandoned by NMDOT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allred) | Defendant's Argument (NMDOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction after voluntary dismissal | Permanent Injunction survives and is enforceable by court | Voluntary dismissal terminated court jurisdiction; disputes belong to arbitration per Settlement Agreement | The Permanent Injunction was a judicially entered injunctive order not subsumed by the dismissal; court retained jurisdiction to enforce it |
| Nature/applicability of arbitration clause | Injunction is a court judgment; arbitration clause does not apply to enforcement of the injunction | Settlement Agreement (and arbitration clause) governs post-settlement disputes, so injunction matters must go to arbitration | The Permanent Injunction is a court judgment with continuing effect; arbitration clause did not subsume injunctive enforcement |
| Contempt finding: ability to comply and willfulness | NMDOT knowingly failed to diligently pursue maintenance until completion, had ability to comply, so contempt appropriate | NMDOT lacked ability to complete (manpower, equipment, weather); conduct not willful or contemptuous | Civil contempt proven: knowledge plus ability to comply shown; district court’s factual findings accepted; willfulness not required for civil contempt |
| Expert evidence & causation/damages | Niccoli (Allreds’ expert) showed causation (bridge capacity, backup, overtopping) and supported damages to personal property; damages measured by repair costs | NMDOT challenged Niccoli and sought to present its own expert (Wallace); argued insufficient evidence of causation and damages computation method | District court did not abuse discretion in excluding NMDOT’s expert for discovery violations; Niccoli’s disclosed report and testimony provided substantial evidence of causation. Damages to personal property awarded by cost-of-repair; $15,000 for pre-event work reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 899 P.2d 576 (N.M. 1995) (discusses subject-matter jurisdiction scope)
- McCuistion v. McCuistion, 385 P.2d 357 (N.M. 1963) (voluntary dismissal under Rule 1-041 vacates prior proceedings and terminates jurisdiction absent retention language)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal retention of jurisdiction over settlement terms requires explicit reservation)
- United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1981) (consent decrees with injunctive provisions are judicial acts with continuing effect requiring careful judicial scrutiny)
- Owen v. Burn Constr. Co., 563 P.2d 91 (N.M. 1977) (distinguishes stipulated judgments that are merely contractual from judgments imposing continuing obligations)
- Benavidez v. Benavidez, 145 P.3d 117 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review: defer to district court factfinding; review legal conclusions de novo)