321 P.3d 128
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- Peterson, a New Mexico inmate, sued Aramark under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (2007) for allegedly false claims.
- Aramark contracted to provide meals at the Western New Mexico Correctional Facility; contract required nutritionally adequate meals and dietary accommodations.
- 2008 lawsuit by Peterson alleged personal nutritional deficiencies and religious diet claims; district court granted summary judgment for Aramark.
- Attorney General did not intervene; prior ruling was affirmed in a memorandum by this Court.
- May 2010 Peterson filed the present qui tam action on behalf of the State, alleging Aramark’s false claims and records.
- District court granted summary judgment on claim and issue preclusion and dismissed pre-2007 conduct due to ex post facto concerns; this was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim preclusion bars present suit | Peterson argues capacity difference defeats preclusion. | Aramark argues same parties and same claim preclude. | Not barred; capacity difference defeats claim preclusion. |
| Issue preclusion bars present suit | Peterson contends issues were not actually and necessarily litigated. | Aramark contends the relevant issues were litigated. | Not barred; issues not actually and necessarily decided. |
| Retroactive application of the Act (ex post facto) | Ex post facto concerns allow pre-07 conduct claims to proceed. | Act retroactivity is barred; pre-07 claims must be dismissed. | Affirmed dismissal of pre-July 1, 2007 claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lusby v. United States ex rel. Rollins, 570 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2009) (government interests; relator capacity distinct from personal suit)
- Laird v. Lockheed Martin Eng. & Sci. Servs. Co., 336 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes relator capacity from private plaintiff)
- Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (U.S. 2009) (real party in interest; government interests)
- Deflon v. Sawyers, 139 N.M. 637 (2006-NMSC-025) (elements of claim preclusion; four required elements)
- Ideal v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 233 P.3d 362 (2010-NMSC-022) (issue preclusion elements; litigiousness factors)