2015 NMCA 003
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gopin appeals a district court judgment under the New Mexico UPA, including treble damages ($216,222.57 to 12 individuals), restitution ($757,358.56 for 110 consumers), and $1,570,000 in civil penalties.
- The district court granted a partial summary judgment early, addressing UPA violations but denying a full response to factual assertions.
- Gopin was not New Mexico licensed, ran a Las Cruces office staffed by NM lawyers, and used retainer agreements with non-attorney staff that the court found violative of the UPA.
- After the partial judgment, named plaintiffs settled, and the AG and 12 intervenors continued, seeking willfulness determinations and remedies.
- The appellate court reverses the willfulness finding, reverses the AG summary judgment on willfulness, and remands for reconsideration with a fuller record.
- The court emphasizes remanding to allow proper analysis of UPA violations, willfulness, and appropriate penalties on a clarified statutory basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the extension denial and limited response error? | Gopin: excusable neglect; he should be allowed to respond. | Gopin was bound by Lujan and waived the right to respond. | Partial judgment reversal warranted; district court abused discretion. |
| Did the district court misread Lujan and abuse discretion in denying extension? | Lujan allows excusable neglect to be considered. | Lujan precluded extension? | Misreading Lujan; remand required. |
| Is the AG's summary judgment on willfulness proper under the UPA? | Willfulness can be shown by a deliberate disregard; AG sought penalties. | Need a clear willfulness standard; possible misapplication. | Willfulness finding reversed; remand for proper standard. |
| Are the penalties and treble damages proper on remand? | Remand necessary to re-evaluate penalties. | Penalties may be upheld if willfulness proven. | Remand required; not decided on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. City of Albuquerque, 134 N.M. 207, 75 P.3d 423 (2003-NMCA-104) (misreading of extension rules and excusable neglect analysis)
- Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2002) (cautionary discussion on local rules and summary judgment procedure)
- Sloan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 135 N.M. 106, 85 P.3d 230 (2004-NMSC-004) (concept of culpable mental state in willfulness)
- Aken v. Plains Electric Gen. & Transmission Coop., 132 N.M. 401, 49 P.3d 662 (2002-NMSC-021) (procedural and substantive due process in punitive contexts)
- Grassie v. Roswell Hosp. Corp., 150 P.3d 1075 (2011-NMCA-024) (limits on raising new arguments on remand)