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

• Glenda Gentry contested the results of a special election held by the Timberon Water and Sanitation District (TWSD), which Virgil Beagles won. Gentry's petition did not include Beagles as a party, leading to his intervention in the case. After Gentry failed to appear at trial, her case was dismissed. Beagles then filed a cross-claim against TWSD for refusing to pay his legal fees, asserting a contract action and an equal protection claim. The district court denied Beagles' claim for legal fees (paras 1-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Sandra A. Grisham, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Intervenor-Appellant (Beagles): Argued that TWSD's refusal to pay his legal fees violated the Equal Protection Clause and that he was entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. He also claimed TWSD had a policy to indemnify directors against litigation costs, which should apply to him (paras 2-4, 6).
• Respondents-Appellees (TWSD): Denied Beagles' demands for legal representation and payment of legal fees, citing conflicts of interest and asserting that Beagles was not similarly situated to other board members who had been indemnified in the past (paras 4, 10-16).

Legal Issues

• Whether TWSD's refusal to pay Beagles' legal fees violates the Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.
• Whether the district court erred in adopting or rejecting certain proposed findings of fact.
• Whether the district court erred in denying attorney fees Beagles incurred pursuing his equal protection claim (para 6).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to deny Beagles' claim for legal fees was affirmed (para 18).

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring): The court found that Beagles did not meet the burden of proof required for a class-of-one equal protection claim. It was determined that Beagles was not similarly situated to other TWSD elected and appointed officers who had been indemnified in the past, and that TWSD had a rational basis for refusing to indemnify Beagles. The court also found that Beagles' intervention in the case and subsequent legal actions were not aligned with TWSD's interests, providing further rational basis for TWSD's actions. Lastly, Beagles was not entitled to attorney fees under § 1988 as he did not prevail in his equal protection claim (paras 6-17).