{1} Appellants Mary Ann Mitchell-Carr, Mildred Smith, Robert Vaughan, and Bernardino Herrera are former officers and members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union. Appellants filed a complaint in the district court alleging that the Union and its president, William McLendon, discriminated against them in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1 to - 7, 28-1-9 to-14 (1969, as amended through 1995). The complaint also asserted allegations of prima facie tort against McLendon. In response to motions by Appellees McLendon and the Union, the district court issued an order granting summary judgment to McLendon on all claims against him, and another order granting summary judgment to the Union on the NMHRA claims of Mitchell-Carr, Smith, and Vaughan. In addition, the district court denied Appellants’ motion to disqualify their opposing counsel, quashed a subpoena directed to a member of opposing counsel’s firm, and issued a protective order relating to that member of the firm.
{2} Mitchell-Carr, Smith, and Vaughan appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to McLendon and the Union on the NMHRA claims. Herrera appeals from the order granting summary judgment to McLendon on the NMHRA claims. All Appellants appeal from the order granting summary judgment to McLendon on the prima facie tort claims, and from the orders relating to disqualification and discovery. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 28-1-13(0). For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{3} With respect to the NMHRA claims against McLendon, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment because Appellants failed to name McLendon as an individual respondent in the complaints they filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). With respect to the NMHRA claims against the Union, we conclude that the district court’s grant of summary judgment was reversible error because -the notices of right to sue issued by the EEOC were not sufficient to trigger the statutory time limit for filing an appeal in the district court and Appellants exhausted their administrative remedies by obtaining orders of nondetermination from the New Mexico Human Rights Division. We conclude that the district court’s order granting summary judgment on Appellants’ prima facie tort claims was a partial summary judgment because McLendon’s summary judgment motion did not address all of the allegations in the complaint. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the parties’ motions relating to discovery and disqualification of opposing counsel.
{4} Appellants’ claims are based on allegations that, while serving as Union officials, Smith and Vaughan discovered a letter addressed to Smith, which Smith had never seen. The letter indicated that the Union’s international had transmitted a check to settle a lawsuit. Smith later learned that the cheek had been transferred to Jay Thomas Youngdahl, the Union’s attorney in that lawsuit. The discovery of this letter led to conflict within the Union about the propriety of transferring the check to Youngdahl. This conflict escalated to Union action against Appellants, to charges against the Union involving the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the EEOC, and finally to the district court complaint that is the basis of this appeal.
{5} Pursuant to a charge of unfair labor practices by Mitchell-Carr and Smith, the NLRB filed a complaint against the Union for violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (1994). An administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the NLRB’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The ALJ’s decision was appealed to the NLRB, Region 28,- in Washington, D.C. The disposition of that appeal is not in the record.
{6} All four Appellants filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1994). The EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Mitchell-Carr on May 13, 1994, to Smith on June 16, 1994, to Vaughan on June 28, 1994, and to Herrera on July 22, 1994. Appellants filed their Complaint in district court on August 12,1994.
{7} The Union and McLendon initially responded to the district court complaint by filing a motion to dismiss in which they alleged, among other things, that Appellants had failed to file their grievances with the Division. At a hearing on December 8,1994, the district court took the motion under advisement and allowed Appellants thirty days to supplement the record with documentation from the Division to show that their administrative remedies had been exhausted. While the motion was under advisement, Appellants obtained four orders of nondetermination from the Division. Appellants filed a notice of appeal from those orders in the district court on December 16, 1994. The district court later entered an order denying the motion to dismiss.
{8} On October 6, 1994, Appellants moved to disqualify opposing counsel, as well as opposing counsel’s entire firm, because Youngdahl was a member of that firm. The district court denied the motion but advised Appellants that their motion would be reconsidered if they developed sufficient evidence to demonstrate that opposing counsel should be disqualified. Subsequently, Appellants issued Youngdahl a subpoena and attempted to depose him. The Union and McLendon responded with a motion for a protective order in which they asked the district court to quash the subpoena and impose sanctions. The district court granted the motion for a protective order, quashed the subpoena, and took the issue of sanctions under advisement.
{9} At the close of discovery, the Union moved for summary judgment on the NMHRA claims filed by Mitchell-Carr, Smith, and Vaughan on the ground that these Appellants did not file their complaint in district court within the statutory time limit. McLendon also moved for summary judgment on these grounds. In addition, McLendon’s summary judgment motion called for dismissal of all Appellants’ claims on the grounds that they failed to name McLendon as an individual respondent in the complaints they filed with the EEOC, and that their prima facie tort claims were preempted by federal law. The district court granted the Union summary judgment with respect to the NMHRA claims of Mitchell-Carr, Smith, arid Vaughan, including in its order a determination that there was “no just reason for delay.” The district court also granted McLendon summary judgment against all Appellants with respect to both their NMHRA claims and their prima facie tort claims, again stating in its order that there was “no just reason for delay.” Both orders are final for purposes of appeal. See Rule 1-054(0(1), (2) NMRA1999.
{10} In order to invoke the grievance procedure provided in the NMHRA, Appellants were required to file a complaint with the Division within 180 days after the unlawful acts occurred. Section 28-l-10(A). They did not file a complaint against McLendon within this period. The record contains copies of the charges on which Appellants relied to show compliance with Section 28-1-10(A). None of the Appellants named McLendon as an individual respondent in these charges; each named only the Union as a respondent. Therefore, we conclude that the district court property granted summary judgment on Appellants’ NMHRA claims against McLendon. See Luboyeski v. Hill,
{11} We next examine the district court’s order granting the Union partial summary judgment. The district court dismissed the NMHRA claims of Mitchell-Carr, Smith, and Vaughan on the grounds that these Appellants did not file their complaint in district court within thirty days of receiving notice of their right to sue from the EEOC. We determine that the EEOC notices were not sufficient to trigger the thirty-day time limit for appealing an administrative order under Section 28-l-13(A). Therefore, we conclude that the district court erred in granting the Union partial summary judgment.
{12} In ruling that Mitchell-Carr, Smith, and Vaughan did not file their complaint against the Union within the thirty-day time limit of Section 28-l-13(A), the district court relied upon Sabella v. Manor Care, Inc.,
{13} The record contains a copy of the work-sharing agreement between the EEOC and the Division. The agreement provides that the EEOC and the Division “each designate the other as its agent for the purpose of receiving and drafting charges.” The agreement also provides for “dual filed charges.” Thus, the agreement contemplates that a person will be allowed to use federal EEOC procedures to set in motion the grievance procedures of the NMHRA to the limited extent that, if he or she initially files a complaint with the EEOC, that complaint will be deemed to have been properly filed with the Division as well.
{14} Our holding in Sabella, 1996— NMSC-014, ¶ 12,
Upon meeting the filing requirements, Sabella could then proceed with her grievance through either the EEOC or the [Division]. She elected to pursue her claim through the [Division]. Sabella then requested and received an order of nondetermination from the [Division] pursuant to Section 28-l-10(D). Having complied with the [Division’s] grievance procedures, ... Sabella could then appeal to the district court for a trial de novo [under] Section 28-l-13(A).
Sabella,
{16} Once a person has elected to proceed with his or her complaint under state law, the NMHRA controls the grievance procedures for resolving that complaint. See § 28-1-10; see also Jaramillo v. J.C. Penney Co.,
{17} This Court and the Court of Appeals have consistently held that “full compliance with NMHRA grievance procedures [is] a prerequisite to filing [an NMHRA] claim in district court.” Sabella,
{18} In this ease, the EEOC notices received by Appellants did not satisfy the first of these prerequisites because they were not orders from the Division. While Appellants were deemed to have properly filed their administrative complaints with the Division when they timely filed such complaints with the EEOC, see Sabella,
{19} Because the EEOC notices were not orders from the Division within the meaning of Section 28-l-13(A), the EEOC notices could not trigger the thirty-day time limit for appealing an order from the Division under that section. Thus, the fact that Mitchell-Carr, Smith, and Vaughan did not file their complaint in court within thirty days of their receipt of the EEOC notices is not dispositive. Because the district court mistakenly relied on this fact as the basis for its decision to grant summary judgment in the Union’s favor, we cannot affirm the district court’s decision on the grounds relied upon below.
{20} We next examine whether we may affirm the district court’s ruling based on alternative grounds upon which the district court did not rely. See State v. Torres,
{21} In this case, however, Appellants contend that the orders of nondetermination they obtained from the Division after filing their district court complaint are sufficient to exhaust their administrative remedies notwithstanding any error regarding the EEOC notices. We agree. Before granting the Union’s motion for partial summary judgment on the NMHRA claims, the district court denied a motion to dismiss that alleged a failure by Appellants to exhaust their administrative remedies. The denial of this motion to dismiss was based on the fact that Appellants obtained orders of nondetermination from the Division and timely filed a notice of appeal from those orders while the motion to dismiss was under advisement.
{22} We do not find error in the district court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss on this basis. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction generally is without prejudice. See Rule 1-041(B) NMRA 1999 (listing “dismissal for lack of jurisdiction” as an exception to the general rule that involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication upon the merits”); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 20(l)(a) (1980) (similar); 5A Wright & Miller, supra, § 1350, at 225 (similar). Thus, it is not uncommon for courts to allow jurisdictional defects to be cured by granting leave to amend the complaint, or to postpone ruling on a jurisdictional issue until the parties have had the opportunity to conduct discovery and present evidence on that issue. Cf. 27A Federal Procedure § 62:476, at 244 (Russell J. Davis et al. eds., 1996) (“[U]nless the [jurisdictional] defect ... is clearly incurable, the court should grant the plaintiff leave to amend, should allow the parties to argue the jurisdictional issue, or should provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to discover facts necessary to establish jurisdiction.”). In this case,
{23} Although the district court later questioned the validity of the orders of non-determination when explaining its decision to grant the Union’s motion for partial summary judgment, this later explanation by the district court was based on the mistaken conclusion that the EEOC notices served to exhaust Appellants’ administrative remedies before the orders of nondetermination were issued. Since the EEOC notices did not serve to exhaust Appellants’ administrative remedies, they could not have invalidated the orders of nondetermination in the manner suggested by the district court in its decision to grant the Union’s motion for partial summary judgment.
{24} For the first time on appeal, the Union suggests another basis for invalidating the orders of nondetermination by claiming that Section 28-l-10(G) of the NMHRA imposes a one-year time limit for obtaining such orders from the Division. In this case, Appellants did not receive their orders of nondetermination from the Division within one year after they filed their administrative complaints with the EEOC. Because the Union did not assert any claim to a timely determination by the Division under Section 28-l-10(G) in the district court or in any administrative forum, however, we will only address this claim as a suggestion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. Wilson v. Denver,
{25} According to the Union, Appellants are barred from obtaining and appealing an order of nondetermination more than one year after filing their administrative complaints with the EEOC because Section 28-l-10(G) of the NMHRA states that:
Within one year of the filing of a complaint by a person aggrieved, the [Division] shall: (1) dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause;
' (2) achieve satisfactory adjustment of the complaint as evidenced by order of the [Division]; or
(3) file a formal complaint on behalf of the [Division].
We do not dispute that such a mandatory provision requiring-the Division to act in a timely manner may serve important purposes such as promoting expeditious review and protecting the parties from arbitrary and capricious delay. See Redman v. Board of Regents,
{26} Section 28-l-10(G) does not expressly place a jurisdictional time limit on the issuance of orders of nondetermination. Cf. High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque,
{27} For these reasons, we conclude that neither the EEOC notices nor Section 28-1-10(G) deprive the orders of nondetermination of their validity for jurisdictional purposes. Because the EEOC notices did not trigger the statutory time limit for filing an appeal in the district court, and because Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal from the Division’s orders of nondetermination as required by Section 28-l-13(A), we reverse the district court’s order granting the Union partial summary judgment with respect to the NMHRA claims and remand for further proceedings on those claims.
III.
{28} McLendon moved for summary judgment against all Appellants on their claims of prima facie tort, on the ground that his alleged misconduct “arguably” constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 158 (1994), and that Appellants’ claims therefore were preempted by federal law. Appellants, on the other hand, argued that the ALJ had already determined that the conduct was not an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. They also argued that federal law did not preempt their claims for prima facie tort, because these claims would not require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.
{29} In their brief in chief before this Court, Appellants argue for reversal of the district court’s dismissal of their prima facie tort claims without addressing the federal preemption issue. Nevertheless, we address this issue for two reasons. First, although the general rule is that we do not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief, see Hale v. Basin Motor Co.,
{30} “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The issue on appeal is whether [McLendon] was entitled to [judgment] ... as a matter of law. We review these legal questions de novo.” Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
{31} In their district court complaint, Appellants make several allegations:
20. McLendon unilaterally declared his impeachment invalid and initiated proceedings to impeach and expel [Appellants] ... from the [Union].
21. The charges brought by McLendon were “frivolous, in some cases stale, in most cases petty, and [in] all cases clearly retaliatory.”
22. The four cases against the [Appellants] were procedurally defective in numerous ways, the [Appellants] were denied information and materials they requested, they were tried in absentia and the trialboard rendered findings of guilty in a rubber stamp manner.
23. Mitchell-Carr was removed from Office, and Mitchell-Carr and Smith were permanently barred from membership in [the Union].
24. Vaughan and Herrera were removed from their trustee positions and their membership'was suspended for five years.
25. Impeachment petitions were also brought against Anita Phillips and Josephina Graf, other members of the [Union’s] Executive Board who had participated in McLendon’s impeachment, but Phillips was not convicted and Graf was not tried. Phillips and Graf are white, [A]nglo females.
26. Other conduct by McLendon reveals, upon information and belief, his discriminatory intent, including but not limited to the removal of a disproportionate number of stewards who a[re] members of suspect classes.
27. McLendon also placed Tim Ashby, another white [A]nglo male, as an assistant to union-employer committees headed by African-Americans, but not committees headed by white Anglos. McLendon would then attend the meetings of these committees with Mr. Ashby rather than the African-American union representatives. Mr. Ashby also served the prosecutor in the impeachment trials of [Appellants].
28. Since the [Appellants] filed their administrative complaints, McLendon and [the Union] have engaged in additional activities, which upon information and belief were intended to harm and/or discriminate against the [Appellants], including but not limited to requesting that their employer, Sandia National Laboratory, fire the [Appellants] for failure to pay union dues (despite the fact that the [Appellants’] membership has been suspended or permanently barred).
{32} The complaint alleges two distinct types of misconduct: (1) Paragraph 28 alleges actions intentionally injuring and discriminating against Appellants in causing their employer to discharge them on the ground that they failed to pay union dues, and (2) Paragraphs 20-27 allege actions intentionally injuring and discriminating against Appellants in having them removed from union office and barred or suspended from union membership. Section 8 of the NLRA preempts a cause of action arising from the first type of alleged misconduct, but neither party has addressed the second type of alleged misconduct. Because it was McLendon’s burden to satisfy the district court that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that we must remand this cause for further proceedings. We explain.
{33} Section 8 of the NLRA provides, in relevant part, that the following is an unfair labor practice by a labor organization and its agents:
to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of ... [29 U.S.C. § 158](a)(3) ... or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(2) (emphasis added). Title 29, Section 158(a)(3), in turn, provides:
That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for nonmembership in a labor organization ... (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) (emphasis added). From the plain language of NLRA Section 8, it is clear that a union agent is protected in causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee on the ground that the employee failed to pay union dues. It follows that this type of union conduct is “arguably” protected by the NLRA. See generally 2 Kenneth Culp Davis & Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative Law Treatise
{34} As for Appellants’ allegations that McLendon intentionally injured and discriminated against them in having them removed from union office and barred or suspended from union membership, McLendon maintains that this type of conduct is also arguably protected or prohibited by Section 8 of the NLRA. We find this argument unpersuasive.
{35} .Paragraphs 20-27 of the complaint allege conduct that implicates internal union matters only. The portion of Section 8 that is relevant to these allegations states that it is an unfair labor practice by a labor organization or any of its agents:
to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 [pertaining to the rights of employees to form labor organizations and to engage in collective bargaining] of this title: Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein____
29 U.S.C. 158(b)(1). This portion of NLRA Section 8 does not arguably protect or prohibit internal union matters. See International Ass’n of Machinists v. Gonzales,
{36} In light of the foregoing analysis, we conclude that McLendon has failed to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that he was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the portion of Appellants’ prima facie tort claims that is based on Paragraphs 20-27 of the complaint. Hence, the motion for summary judgment by McLendon must be viewed as a motion for partial summary judgment, and we conclude that McLendon has not addressed, and the district court has not yet ruled on, prima facie tort claims based on the allegations contained in Paragraphs 20-27 of the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision regarding Appellants’ prima facie tort claims as a partial summary judgment but remand for entry of an amended judgment and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IV.
{37} We now turn to the points of error, raised by Appellants, that the district court improperly issúed a protective order in favor of Youngdahl, inappropriately quashed the subpoena served upon Youngdahl, and unduly denied Appellants’ motion to disqualify opposing counsel and opposing counsel’s entire firm, which included Youngdahl. We review the district court’s denial of Appellants’ disqualification motion for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Pennington,
{38} From the record and the briefs, the grounds on which Appellants based their motion to disqualify opposing counsel and the Youngdahl firm are not entirely clear. In their brief in chief, Appellants appear to rely on Rule 16-307 NMRA 1999, which governs a lawyer’s appearance as a witness when he or she is also acting as an advocate (sometimes called the “advocate-witness rule”). In their reply brief, Appellants allude to the need to disqualify the Youngdahl firm on the basis of a conflict of interest under Rule 16-107 NMRA 1999. We decline to address grounds for disqualification that rely on Rule 16-107 because those grounds were raised for the first time in Appellants’ reply brief, thus “foreclos[ing] a response from [AJppellees.” Doe v. City of Albuquerque,
{39} “Although the [Rules of Civil Procedure] favor the allowance of liberal pretrial discovery, the trial court is vested with discretion in determining whether to limit discovery.” DeTevis,
{40} After a hearing on Appellants’ motions, the district court concluded that the issue of the propriety of payments Youngdahl received from the Union was collateral to Appellants’ claims against McLendon and the Union because a determination of the merits of Appellants’ contentions re-' garding Youngdahl’s billing was not needed to establish whether the Union or McLendon had unlawfully discriminated against them or whether McLendon had committed a prima facie tort. We cannot say that the district court’s reasoning “is clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the facts and circumstances of the ease.” Sims v. Sims,
V.
{41} We affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment and dismissing Appellants’ NMHRA claims against McLendon with prejudice because McLendon was not named as an individual respondent in the administrative complaints that Appellants filed with the EEOC. We reverse the district court’s order granting the Union summary judgment on the NMHRA claims of Mitchell-Carr, Smith, and Vaughan because these Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal from the orders of nondetermination issued by the Division and the district court erred in relying on their EEOC notices to determine the time limit for filing an appeal under Section 28-l-13(A). We remand for further proceedings on the NMHRA claim against the Union.
{42} Turning to Appellants’ prima facie tort claims, we affirm the district court’s order as a determination that McLendon was entitled to partial summary judgment on the conduct alleged in Paragraph 28 of the complaint because federal law preempts a prima facie tort claim based on such conduct. With respect to the conduct alleged in Paragraphs
{43} IT IS SO ORDERED.