State of N.M., ex rel Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 297 P.3d 357

FATA enacted in 2007; Foy filed qui tam alleging pre-2007 acts (as early as 2003) fall within retroactivity under §44-9-12(A).
Companion Vanderbilt case involved similar allegations and district court ruled retroactivity unconstitutional; interlocutory appeal granted.
District court initially addressed subject matter jurisdiction and severability alongside constitutionality of retroactivity.
FATA imposes treble damages, per-violation fines, costs, and attorney fees, with scienter required; penalties may be punitive.
Court uses Mendoza-Martinez seven-factor test to assess whether FATA is punitive; retroactivity severability is analyzed under severability clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is FATA retroactive application unconstitutional under Ex Post Facto Clause?	Foy: retroactivity violates Ex Post Facto.	Austin Defendants: retroactivity constitutional.	Retroactivity unconstitutional.
Are treble damages under FATA punitive, barring retroactive application?	Foy: treble damages are punitive.	FATA treble damages remedial.	Treble damages largely punitive; retroactivity barred.
Should the retroactivity provision be severed to preserve remaining provisions?	Foy: sever retroactivity only.	Severability questionable; retroactive clause may be severed.	Retroactivity severable; remaining provisions apply prospectively.
Do Mendoza-Martinez factors show FATA is punitive in nature?	Foy: not punitive under factors.	FATA punitive under multiple factors.	Five of seven factors punitive; statute deemed penal in nature.

Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (U.S. 1981) (treble damages reflect punitive purpose and deterrence)
United States ex rel. Chandler v. Massachusetts, 538 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2003) (treble damages have remedial and punitive facets; context matters)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (seven-factor test for punitive vs. remedial sanctions)