Faber v. King, 348 P.3d 173

Background

In 2010 Daniel Faber filed an IPRA request to the New Mexico Attorney General for employment data; the AG denied it citing a federal discovery stay.
Faber sued in state court under IPRA; the district court found the denial wrongful, issued a writ of mandamus, and reserved damages.
Faber sought per‑diem/statutory damages ($100/day) by analogy to § 14‑2‑11(C); the district court awarded a mix of $10/day (pre‑stay) and $100/day (post‑stay) plus costs.
The Court of Appeals held § 14‑2‑12 governs damages for wrongful denial and rejected applying § 14‑2‑11(C)’s per‑day penalty to § 14‑2‑12, remanding for findings.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide what types of damages § 14‑2‑12(D) authorizes for successful IPRA enforcement actions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 14‑2‑12 authorizes statutory (per‑day) damages	Faber: § 14‑2‑12’s broad "damages" includes per‑day statutory penalties like § 14‑2‑11 to ensure enforcement	AG: Legislature provided per‑day damages in § 14‑2‑11; absence in § 14‑2‑12 shows no statutory damages intended	No. § 14‑2‑12 does not authorize statutory per‑day damages; those are confined to § 14‑2‑11
Whether § 14‑2‑12 authorizes punitive damages against the State	Faber: IPRA’s purpose supports deterrent/punitive awards	AG: No clear legislative authorization; punitive damages against state require express statute	No. § 14‑2‑12 silent; punitive damages against the State are not permitted absent express authorization
Whether § 14‑2‑12 authorizes compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees	Faber: If only compensatory allowed, IPRA lacks teeth	AG: IPRA’s primary purpose is access to records; damages are secondary	Yes. § 14‑2‑12 authorizes actual (compensatory) damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees (and equitable relief)
Whether plaintiff may recover nominal damages here	Faber: Per‑day award could be treated as nominal damages	AG: District court lacked authority to award per‑day amounts; amount not trivial	No. Nominal damages are trivial sums; § 14‑2‑12 provides for compensatory damages and nominal damages are inappropriate where compensatory relief is available; Faber waived proof of actual damages

Key Cases Cited

Cooper v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 38 P.3d 234 (N.M. 2002) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
San Juan Agric. Water Users Ass’n v. KNME‑TV, 257 P.3d 884 (N.M. 2011) (IPRA’s purpose: public’s fundamental right to inspect records)
Torrance Cnty. Mental Health Program v. N.M. Health & Env’t Dep’t, 830 P.2d 145 (N.M. 1992) (punitive damages against state disfavored absent express authorization)
Brown v. Village of Deming, 243 P.2d 609 (N.M. 1952) (general rule: punitive/exemplary damages not allowed against municipalities without statute)
Rascoe v. Town of Farmington, 304 P.2d 575 (N.M. 1956) (same principle as Brown)
Sanchez v. Clayton, 877 P.2d 567 (N.M. 1994) (definition and purpose of compensatory damages)
Ruiz v. Varan, 797 P.2d 267 (N.M. 1990) (nominal damages defined; trial court discretion over amount)
State ex rel. N.M. State Hwy. & Transp. Dep’t v. Baca, 896 P.2d 1148 (N.M. 1995) (award of attorneys’ fees does not conflict with prohibitions on punitive damages)
Rio Grande Sun v. Jemez Mountains Pub. Sch. Dist., 287 P.3d 318 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (IPRA fee‑shifting encourages private enforcement)
Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 226 P.3d 611 (N.M. 2010) (do not read statutory language into statute when text is clear)
State v. Rivera, 82 P.3d 939 (N.M. 2004) (consider statute history and background in interpretation)
State v. Smith, 98 P.3d 1022 (N.M. 2004) (harmonize statutory enactments when possible)
Lucero v. Aladdin Beauty Colls., Inc., 871 P.2d 365 (N.M. 1994) (fee‑shifting statutes encourage private enforcement)
Edenburn v. N.M. Dep’t of Health, 299 P.3d 424 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (interpreting § 14‑2‑11 statutory per‑day damages availability)