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 sought to construct a multi-story, high-density apartment building in downtown Albuquerque. Challenges arose due to actions by the City of Albuquerque that could have led to the re-zoning of the Plaintiff's property, potentially prohibiting her construction plans. However, the City approved the Plaintiff's building plans in March 2013, after the initiation of the lawsuit but before the filing of the Plaintiff's docketing statement in April 2013 (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the City's actions regarding potential re-zoning of her property were incorrect and that the approval of her building plans by the City in March 2013 proved her claims were correct (para 2).
• Defendants: The specific arguments of the Defendants (City of Albuquerque and City Council of the City of Albuquerque) are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's claims were ripe for judicial review at the time of the district court's dismissal (para 1).
• Whether the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the 2006 settlement agreement were moot following the City's approval of her building plans (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint for lack of ripeness (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael D. Bustamante, Roderick T. Kennedy, and James J. Wechsler, held that the Plaintiff's claims were not ripe for judicial review. This conclusion was supported by the City's eventual approval of the Plaintiff's building plans, which rendered her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot. The Court emphasized the importance of ripeness and finality in determining its jurisdiction and ability to decide a claim. The Plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient information about the DNA Sector Plan, the Rezoning Resolution, and the 2006 settlement agreement, upon which her right to non-historic zoning was based, contributed to the Court's decision. The Court also noted the Plaintiff's refusal to follow its request for more information as a failure to demonstrate that the district court erred in its dismissal for lack of ripeness (paras 1-8).