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

• Qui tam plaintiffs filed a complaint under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) against former Bernalillo County Treasurer, two investment brokers and their firms, and unnamed defendants, alleging a conspiracy to defraud the County. The State and County declined to intervene and moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred under FATA because the allegations had been subject to a prior lawsuit and had been publicly disclosed (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The complaint was dismissed under Section 44-9-9(D) of FATA, finding the allegations had been publicly disclosed in news stories and a prior lawsuit filed by the County (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Qui Tam Plaintiffs: Argued that the district court erred by interpreting Section 44-9-9(D) as an absolute bar to their lawsuit, failing to consider the best interests of the parties and the public purposes behind FATA, dismissing the action without requiring the State and County to first intervene and show good cause, and overlooking Section 44-9-7 which provides a possible award to a qui tam plaintiff whose action is based on publicly disclosed information (paras 5, 7, 9, 14, 18).
• State of New Mexico and County of Bernalillo: Contended that the complaint was barred under FATA Section 44-9-9(C) because the allegations were the subject of a prior lawsuit filed by the County against the same defendants, or alternatively, under Section 44-9-9(D) because the alleged fraudulent conduct had been publicly disseminated through the media and a governmental report (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing Qui Tam Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Section 44-9-9(D) of FATA (para 4).

Disposition

• The district court's order of dismissal was affirmed (para 23).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not misinterpret Section 44-9-9(D) as an absolute bar, properly considered the best interests of the parties and the public purposes behind FATA, and was not required to have the State and County intervene, show good cause, and present evidence before dismissing the complaint. The Court also found that Section 44-9-7, which deals with the distribution of proceeds recovered through qui tam actions, did not prevent the district court from dismissing the complaint under Section 44-9-9(D). The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint based on the public disclosure of the alleged fraudulent claims (paras 7-22).