AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Three plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment against the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) for the release of funds after administrative proceedings. These proceedings were initiated following the voluntary dismissal of a qui tam action under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act against Presbyterian Health Plan. The New Mexico State Treasurer attempted to intervene in the action (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellees: Argued for a declaratory judgment against OSI for the release of funds following administrative proceedings after the dismissal of their qui tam action (para 1).
• Intervenor-Appellant (New Mexico State Treasurer): Sought to intervene in the proceedings, claiming a necessary role to ensure plaintiffs could obtain their requested relief and asserting that his intervention was vital to protect the State’s funds and to assert defenses against the disbursement of funds to plaintiffs (paras 3, 9).
• Defendant (New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico State Treasurer should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings as of right or through joinder, claiming to be an indispensable or necessary party to the action (paras 3, 5).

Disposition

• The district court’s denial of the Treasurer’s motion to intervene was affirmed (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Shammara H. Henderson writing the opinion, and concurrences from Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Kristina Bogardus, held that the Treasurer did not demonstrate a concrete showing to overcome the presumption that any interest he may have in the litigation was adequately protected by OSI. The court found that the Treasurer’s duties were ministerial and did not make him an indispensable party to the action. The court also noted that any dispute regarding the payment of a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs could be addressed in a proceeding on a writ of mandamus, rather than through intervention or joinder in the current case. The court concluded that allowing the Treasurer to intervene on the basis he proposed would imply he could intervene in any action involving a state entity as a defendant, which was not a tenable position (paras 4-9).