Cordova v. Cline, 34,093

Background

Citizens for Quality Education (CQE), an unincorporated association, collected signatures and filed a recall petition under New Mexico’s Local School Board Member Recall Act to remove Taos school board member Arsenio Cordova.
The County Clerk filed for a statutorily required sufficiency hearing; the hearing was continued twice and held months later. CQE voluntarily dismissed the recall petition at the hearing.
Two days after the dismissal, Cordova sued eight named CQE members and ten unnamed members alleging malicious abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and prima facie tort, claiming affidavits were incompetent and backdated.
Several petitioners moved to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6) and invoked New Mexico’s Anti-SLAPP statute and the First Amendment Noerr-Pennington doctrine; district court granted dismissal and did not decide some counterclaims.
The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding Anti-SLAPP and Noerr-Pennington did not apply to these recall actions and excluded petitioners with pending counterclaims from the appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The New Mexico Supreme Court held that: (1) the Anti-SLAPP statute applies to recall-related petitioning; (2) Noerr-Pennington immunity applies unless the petitioning is objectively baseless and motivated by an improper subjective purpose; (3) petitioners were entitled to dismissal under those doctrines and to attorney fees under the Anti-SLAPP statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Anti‑SLAPP statute applies to recall petition activities	Cordova: recall sufficiency hearing is a judicial proceeding and not covered by Anti‑SLAPP	Petitioners: recall process (including petition collection, filing, county clerk actions, sufficiency hearing) is "in connection with a public hearing" and protected	Anti‑SLAPP statute applies broadly to recall activities; the statute’s "in connection with" language covers petitioning steps leading to the sufficiency hearing
Whether interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under Anti‑SLAPP includes petitioners with pending counterclaims	Cordova: Court of Appeals should exclude petitioners with unresolved counterclaims; no final judgment	Petitioners: expedited interlocutory appeal right is statutory and must include all parties to avoid piecemeal litigation	The Anti‑SLAPP expedited appeal provision allows interlocutory appeal by any party, including those with pending counterclaims
Whether Noerr‑Pennington immunity bars Cordova’s tort claims	Cordova: petition was a sham (affidavits backdated, voluntary dismissal, delays) so immunity pierced	Petitioners: their petitioning was protected First Amendment activity; immunity shields petitioning unless sham is shown	Noerr‑Pennington applies; to overcome it Cordova must plead (1) petition was objectively baseless and (2) primary purpose was an improper subjective motive
Whether Cordova’s complaint adequately pleaded the sham exception to allow his claims to proceed	Cordova: alleged backdating, untimely affidavits, delays, publicity, and asserted damages; these facts show objective baselessness and improper motive	Petitioners: allegations are conclusory and reflect political disagreement; not sufficiently specific under a heightened pleading standard	Applying a heightened pleading standard, the Court finds Cordova sufficiently alleged objective baselessness (untimely/backdated affidavits) but failed to plead specific facts showing an improper subjective motive; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

E. R. R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (establishes petition‑immunity principle)
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (extends Noerr immunity to efforts to influence government)
Prof'l Real Estate Inv'rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (sham‑litigation two‑part test: objectively baseless then examine subjective intent)
Bill Johnson’s Rest.’s., Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (reaffirms sham exception to petition immunity)
Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (right to petition covers administrative agencies and courts)
BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (reluctance to interpret statutes as invading petition rights)
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923 (Noerr‑Pennington applied beyond antitrust context)
Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 208 F.3d 885 (Tenth Circuit discussion of immunity source)
Oregon Nat. Res. Council v. Mohla, 944 F.2d 531 (advocates heightened pleading where First Amendment petitioning is implicated)