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 won a judgment against the Defendants for retaliation under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, totaling $867,971.07. Despite attempts to collect, the Plaintiff was unsuccessful and filed a motion to pierce the corporate veil of Mesilla Capital Investments, LLC (MCI), alleging it was the alter ego of Defendant De La Vega, used to shield his assets from the judgment. The district court denied the motion, citing lack of jurisdiction as MCI was not a party to the proceedings (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• Imming v. De La Vega, A-1-CA-39116, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2023) (nonprecedential): Both parties appealed the final judgment awarding the Plaintiff $867,971.07.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendant De La Vega transferred his assets to MCI to avoid paying the judgment and sought to pierce MCI's corporate veil to collect (para 3).
• Defendants: Contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over MCI as it was not a party to the underlying proceedings and had not been served with process (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion to pierce the corporate veil of MCI to satisfy a judgment against Defendant De La Vega (para 5).
• Whether "outside reverse veil piercing" is permissible under New Mexico law and applicable in this case (para 5).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of Plaintiff's motion to pierce the corporate veil was affirmed due to lack of jurisdiction over MCI, a nonparty (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Megan P. Duffy, Kristina Bogardus, and Jacqueline R. Medina, unanimously concluded that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over MCI, as it was not joined as a party nor served with process. The Court noted that New Mexico has not explicitly addressed "outside reverse veil piercing" but emphasized that procedural and jurisdictional requirements precluded the Plaintiff's motion. The Court suggested that Plaintiff could bring an independent action against MCI or possibly join MCI through supplemental proceedings but declined to explore these options further due to lack of briefing on the matter. The Court also distinguished the Plaintiff's reliance on a California case, noting that New Mexico lacks a similar statutory or common law basis for such a procedure post-judgment (paras 5-11).