New Mexico Ex Rel. State Engineer v. Trujillo
813 F.3d 1308
10th Cir.2016Background
- Long-running general stream adjudication (Aamodt) in New Mexico to determine water rights in the Nambe‑Pojoaque‑Tesuque Basin; thousands of parties and a statutorily mandated final decree deadline (Settlement Act).
- 1983 district‑court injunction limited post‑1982 domestic well permits to indoor/household use (no irrigation); post‑1982 permits, including Trujillo’s, were later amended to 3.0 AFY or historic beneficial use, whichever is less.
- The State issued a 2006 show‑cause directing post‑1982 permit holders to justify larger allotments; Trujillo disputed proposed 0.5 AFY limit and outdoor‑use prohibition.
- Special master granted summary judgment for the State in 2010 after Trujillo failed to present evidence to rebut the State’s expert that average indoor use ≈0.4 AFY; special master held her permit precluded irrigation.
- District court adopted the special master’s ruling in a 2015 order adjudicating Trujillo’s rights (0.5 AFY limit, no outdoor use) and included an injunction clause; the district court’s Rule 54(b) certification was cursory and noted inter se objections could alter the order.
- Trujillo appealed; main contested jurisdictional questions were whether the 2015 order was final under §1291/Rule 54(b) or pragmatically final, whether §1292(a)(1) jurisdiction applied (injunction), and whether the special master’s summary judgment was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trujillo) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2015 order is a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. §1291 / Rule 54(b) | The district court certified the order as final; thus appealable | Certification was conclusory and the order remains subject to inter se revision and the Settlement Act final decree | Not final under Rule 54(b); certification inadequate; no §1291 jurisdiction |
| Whether the pragmatic (Gillespie) finality exception applies | Immediate review required to prevent deprivation of claimed rights (3.0 AFY and outdoor use) | No unique, irreparable injustice shown; longstanding permit and inter se process counsel delay | Pragmatic finality not met; doctrine inapplicable here |
| Whether §1292(a)(1) authorizes interlocutory appeal of the 2015 order (injunction) | Implicitly contests the injunction language; seeks review of orders denying motions to quash 1983 injunction | The 2015 order includes explicit injunctive language proposed by the State; qualifies as an injunction for §1292(a)(1) review | Court has jurisdiction under §1292(a)(1); 2015 order is an interlocutory injunction appealable |
| Merits: validity of special master’s summary judgment adjudicating Trujillo’s water rights | Permit alone confers broader rights (3.0 AFY and irrigation); constitutional challenges to adjudication | Trujillo failed to present evidence of beneficial use or to rebut State’s evidence; permits do not by themselves create water rights under NM law | Summary judgment for the State affirmed; Trujillo failed to meaningfully challenge the special master and presented no contrary evidentiary showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Stockman’s Water Co. v. Vaca Partners, 425 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2005) (Rule 54(b) requires express determinations of finality and no just reason for delay)
- Curtiss‑Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (factors for considering separability and appellate efficiency for partial final judgments)
- Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2013) (courts must not look beyond the text of an order to find Rule 54(b) determinations)
- Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, 714 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013) (pragmatic finality doctrine must be narrowly applied in truly unique circumstances)
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (standards for appealing district‑court orders that have the practical effect of granting or denying injunctions)
- Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1999) (appeals under §1292(a)(1) review interlocutory orders granting or denying injunctive relief)
- Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch., 964 F.2d 980 (10th Cir. 1992) (appellate review limited to matters closely related to the injunction)
- Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2001) (preliminary injunction must be sufficiently specific under Rule 65(d) to be enforceable)