Cases

Office of the Director New Mexico Compilation 2021.03.08 Commission '00'07- 07:16:58 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2021-NMCA-004 Filing Date: October 1,

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. . The district court remanded this case after concluding that the defendant had waived its right to remove by filing a motion to dismiss in state court. We hold that we have appellate jurisdiction over this appeal, and affirm. 1 BACKGROUND The City

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1151THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, filed October 16, 2017 (Doc. 67)("MSJ"); (ii) the Defendant's Motion and Supporting Memorandum to Strike Declaration of Joseph T. Gardemal III in Suppo

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Rule 50(b) Motion, and Memorandum in Support, Requesting for the Judgment on the Jury Verdict to Stand; to Find Defendants Have Qualified Immunity; and to Enter Judgment as a Matter of Law in Favor of Defendants, filed July 26, 2012 (Doc. 201)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on June 14, 2013. The primary issues

*1198MEMORANDUM OPINION1 JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss, filed November 22, 2013 (Doc. 9)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 24, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether a claim exists under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to properly investig

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1 JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ‘ THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Padilla’s Motion for Summary' Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, filed April 10, 2015 (Doc. 25)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on October 9, 2015. The primary issue is whether Defendant Pablo Padilla, a police officer with

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 8, 2016 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Attorney Paula Forney, filed July 17, 2013 (Doc. 46) (“Motion to Disqualify”). The Court held a hearing on November 1, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should disqualify Defendant and attorney Paula Forney from representing fellow Defendants C

OPINION HANISEE, Judge. In this single issue appeal, we are called upon to resolve a matter of first impression: whether the City of Albuquerque’s (the City) overtime compensation schedule for Albuquerque Police Department (APD) employees violates the statutory time payment provisions required of New Mexico employers. See NMSA 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Albuquerque Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Claims Against the Albuquerque Police Department, filed April 7, 2014 (Doc. 17)(“MTD 1”); and (ii) Defendant City of Albuquerque’s Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss Plaintiffs Municipal Liability Claims Against City o

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Paula Forney, filed May 3, 2013 (Doc. 43)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on November 1, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Paula Forney under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the City of Albuquerque Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed Feb. 1, 2013 (Doc. 54)(“City MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 12, 2013. The primary issues are: (i) whether to apply law-of-the-case doctrine to dispose of the City MTD using the findings and conclusions of the Court’s earli

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint in its Entirety, filed March 29, 2013 (Doc. 26)(“MTD & MSJ.”). The Court held a hearing on November 1, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court will dismiss for failure to state a claim or gr

206 P.3d 112 (2009) 2009-NMSC-011 PRIMETIME HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant-Respondent. No. 30,543. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 20, 2009. Rehearing Denied March 30, 2009. *114 Sutin, Thayer & Browne, P.C., Kerry Kiernan, Dennis M. Mc

EBEL, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents us with a difficult issue of first impression. John Doe, a registered sex offender, brought a facial challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to a ban enacted by the City of Albuquerque that prohibited registered sex offenders from entering the City’s public libraries. The district court denied a motion to dismiss brought by

Appellate Case: 24-2066 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 6, 2025

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23- 112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date

749 F.Supp.2d 1216 (2010) Michael CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant. No. CIV 10-0588 JB/ACT. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. October 13, 2010. *1218 Pia Gallegos, Albuquerque, NM, for the Plaintiff. Deborah D. Wells, Kennedy, Moulton & Wells, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for the Defendant.

OPINION CASTILLO, Judge. {1} On motion for rehearing, the opinion filed October 30, 2008, is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted in its place. The motion for rehearing is otherwise denied. {2} The operable event that forms the basis for these consolidated eases

184 P.3d 411 (2008) 2008-NMSC-025 ALBUQUERQUE COMMONS PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Respondent-Respondent. Albuquerque Commons Partnership, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. City Council of the City of Albuquerque, Respondent-Respondent. Nos. 29,791, 29,799. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 18, 2