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, a former employee, sued the Defendant, his former employer, under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), claiming retaliation for reporting illegal practices. The district court initially denied the Plaintiff's request for attorney fees, concluding neither party had prevailed. On appeal, this Court found the Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred before a specific settlement offer under the WPA.

Procedural History

• Maestas v. Town of Taos, 2020-NMCA-027, 464 P.3d 1056: The Court determined the Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable attorney fees under the WPA and costs incurred before the Defendant’s settlement offer.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued for attorney fees and costs, including for work on the appeal, asserting that all invoiced charges were for the WPA claim and that the district court erred in its allocation of fees and costs.
• Defendant: Contended that the Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees and costs for work on the appeal and that the district court correctly awarded costs incurred after the Defendant’s settlement offer.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining the amount of attorney fees awarded to the Plaintiff.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to gross receipts taxes on the attorney fee award.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs for work on the appeal.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to reduce the attorney fee award to a judgment.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs under Rule 1-068.
• Whether the district court erred in holding the Plaintiff in contempt for failure to pay the Defendant’s costs under Rule 1-068.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings regarding the determination of the Plaintiff’s reasonable appellate attorney fees. The Court affirmed the district court’s rulings on the remaining issues.

Reasons

• The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Plaintiff 35 percent of the requested attorney fees, as it was reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff’s fee request included time for work on matters other than the WPA claim (paras 7-15). The Court also held that the district court did not err in its application of the lodestar criteria to calculate the Plaintiff’s attorney fees (paras 16-19). Regarding gross receipts taxes, the Court concluded that the awarded amount appeared to include such taxes consistent with the percentage awarded of the whole amount requested by the Plaintiff, which included taxes (para 20). The Court determined that the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff’s request for appellate attorney fees due to not requesting them under Rule 12-403 NMRA, as attorney fees are mandatory under the WPA and include work on appeal (paras 21-25). The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the award of costs to the Defendant under Rule 1-068 (paras 27-35). Lastly, the Court noted that the Plaintiff’s claim of being held in contempt for failure to pay Defendant’s costs under Rule 1-068 was unfounded, as the district court never held the Plaintiff in contempt (para 36).