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

• The State of New Mexico, represented by the Attorney General, filed a lawsuit against ITT Educational Services, Inc. (ITT), alleging violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) due to purported misrepresentations about ITT’s nursing program and financial aid process. ITT sought to compel arbitration based on student enrollment agreements, which included a confidentiality clause for arbitration proceedings. Additionally, ITT objected to subpoenas served on attorneys representing ITT students in past arbitrations, arguing that disclosing the requested materials would breach the confidentiality clauses of the enrollment agreements (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied ITT's motion to compel arbitration and ordered compliance with subpoenas served on counsel for ITT students by the Attorney General (para 1).
• Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico: Affirmed the district court's decisions (para 20).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the confidentiality clause in ITT's student enrollment agreements should not prevent the State from investigating and enforcing the UPA, emphasizing the public interest in resolving consumer claims and the broad statutory authority granted to the State for such purposes (paras 4, 14-16).
• Defendant-Appellant (ITT): Claimed that the Attorney General should be bound by the arbitration and confidentiality provisions in the student enrollment agreements, arguing that the State's claims were derivative of or represented student claims and that arbitration confidentiality was necessary to protect the privacy of students and the integrity of the arbitration process (paras 2-3, 5, 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the confidentiality clause in ITT's student enrollment agreements is enforceable against the State of New Mexico in the context of the State's UPA claims (para 11).
• Whether the State of New Mexico is required to arbitrate its claims against ITT based on the arbitration provision in the student enrollment agreements (para 17).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that enforcing the arbitration and confidentiality provisions against the State would be contrary to public policy and that the State is not required to arbitrate its claims against ITT (paras 19-20).

Reasons

• Per VARGAS, J. (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., and J. MILES HANISEE, J., concurring): The court concluded that the confidentiality clause in ITT's student enrollment agreements is unenforceable against the State in the context of UPA claims due to public policy favoring the investigation and enforcement of consumer protection laws. The court also determined that the State's statutory authority to enforce the UPA includes the right to bring actions in its name, which cannot be restricted by a private arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that its decision was based on the specific powers granted to the State under the UPA and did not address the use of arbitration provisions or confidentiality clauses in private suits under the UPA (paras 8-18).