Madrid v. Village of Chama
2012 NMCA 071
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Madrid was terminated from the Village of Chama on July 15, 2009 under the Ordinance's employment procedures.
- Madrid sought an appeal hearing under Article IX, § 9.140 of the Ordinance, with the hearing originally scheduled for July 22, 2009.
- During the meeting, the Village Council attempted to convert the appeal into a pre-termination hearing.
- The Mayor issued a termination letter the following day, stating Madrid was terminated, though he had already been terminated on July 15 and had no income since then.
- Madrid timely appealed the July 23, 2009 termination decision; a post-termination hearing was held September 8, 2009 and Madrid was fired after a full Village Council vote.
- The Village informed Madrid of its final decision in writing on October 13, 2009, more than a month after the post-termination hearing.
- Madrid filed suit in district court on December 9, 2009 seeking damages for breach of implied contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful discharge.
- On January 11, 2010, the Village moved to dismiss under Rules 1-012(B)(6) and 1-075(D)(P)(l); the district court granted dismissal on March 11, 2010, finding no implied contract and no state claim.
- Madrid sought reconsideration, which was denied, and he appeals challenging the district court’s ruling on both the jurisdiction and the failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Madrid could appeal via district court instead of a writ of certiorari | Madrid exhausted remedies but did not seek certiorari; he argues direct damages action is permissible. | Village argues Madrid was limited to certiorari review of the administrative decision. | Madrid not required to petition for certiorari; district court had jurisdiction to hear damages claim. |
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim under Rule 1-012(B)(6) | Madrid alleged an implied contract and a covenant of good faith based on the Ordinance and handbook. | Ordinance expressly states no contract and did not create implied rights; dismissal appropriate. | District court erred; complaint states plausible breach of implied contract and breach of covenant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zamora v. Village of Ruidoso Downs, 120 N.M. 778, 907 P.2d 182 (1995) (agency decision reviewable by writ of certiorari; distinguishable from direct damages action)
- Barreras v. State of New Mexico Corr. Dep’t, 133 N.M. 313, 62 P.3d 770 (2003) (Spa remedies not exclusive; implied-contract claim requires notice in pleadings)
- Beggs v. City of Portales, 146 N.M. 372, 210 P.3d 798 (2009) (implied contract may exist even if manual disclaims it (summary judgment context))
- West v. Washington Tru Solutions, LLC, 147 N.M. 424, 224 P.3d 651 (2010) (implied contract theory in employment manuals (summary judgment context))
- Lukoski v. Sandia Indian Mgmt. Co., 106 N.M. 664, 748 P.2d 507 (1988) (manual not a contract; acknowledged limits on implied-contract theories)
- Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 108 N.M. 424, 773 P.2d 1231 (1989) (employee handbook can create an implied contract if it governs the relationship)