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 Plaintiff, Linda Bigelow, initiated a lawsuit against Defendants Larry H. Miller Corporation-Albuquerque (LHM), FCA US LLC, and Nusenda Federal Credit Union, asserting multiple claims. The jury found in favor of the Plaintiff on her claim that LHM committed unfair trade practices in violation of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA). However, the district court granted LHM's motion for judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict, and denied the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees as moot.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that LHM committed an unfair trade practice in violation of the UPA by failing to deliver the quality or quantity of goods or services contracted for. The Plaintiff contended that LHM failed to properly service the truck she bought from them and did not meet obligations under various contracts, including warranty agreements and an alleged obligation to provide diagnostic services.
• Defendants: LHM argued for judgment as a matter of law, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict under the UPA. They disputed the Plaintiff's claims regarding the failure to deliver services or goods as contracted.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting LHM's motion for judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on her UPA claim.
• Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees under the UPA.

Disposition

• The district court's grant of LHM's motion for judgment as a matter of law and denial of Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees were affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Henderson writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Attrep and Yohalem, reviewed the district court's ruling de novo. The Court found that the Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on her UPA claim. Specifically, the Court noted that there was no evidence that LHM knowingly made misrepresentations concerning its obligations to provide diagnostic services or that it failed to attempt to repair the Plaintiff's truck. The Court also found that the Plaintiff's other theories, including LHM's failure to timely deliver the truck and the truck being defective, did not support the jury's verdict. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff was not the prevailing party under the UPA and therefore not entitled to attorney fees and costs (paras 2-18).