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 case involves a dispute between the New Mexico State Land Office (SLO) and Siddens & Dodson, LLP, regarding a rockslide that damaged Siddens' residential property. Siddens claimed the SLO was negligent in failing to address a known hazard on state trust land adjacent to their property. The SLO sought a declaratory judgment to determine if the Tort Claims Act (TCA) waived sovereign immunity for Siddens' negligence claim (paras 1, 4-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The court declared that the SLO is protected by sovereign immunity, dismissed Siddens' tort claim and CRA counterclaim, and granted summary judgment to the SLO on Siddens' IPRA counterclaim.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellees (SLO): Argued that the state trust lands are not a "public park" under the TCA, and thus sovereign immunity is not waived. They also contended there is no common law duty to prevent natural conditions from causing property damage (paras 2-3).
- Defendants/Counterclaimants/Appellants (Siddens): Claimed the state trust land is a "public park" under the TCA, which should waive sovereign immunity. They also argued that the SLO retaliated against them in violation of the CRA and improperly redacted information under IPRA (paras 3, 7, 14, 22-24, 32).
Legal Issues
- Does the TCA waive sovereign immunity for negligence claims related to state trust lands not classified as "public parks"? (paras 2-3, 7-13)
- Was the summary judgment on Siddens' IPRA claim properly granted? (paras 22-25)
- Did the SLO's declaratory judgment action violate the CRA by retaliating against Siddens? (paras 32-34)
Disposition
- The court affirmed the district court's judgment that the SLO is protected by sovereign immunity, dismissed Siddens' tort claim and CRA counterclaim, and granted summary judgment to the SLO on Siddens' IPRA counterclaim.
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Attrep and Baca JJ. concurring):
The court found that the state trust land at issue is not a "public park" under the TCA, as it is primarily used for grazing and not developed or maintained for recreation, thus sovereign immunity is not waived (paras 14-20). The court also held that the SLO made a prima facie case for attorney-client privilege regarding the redacted memorandum, and Siddens failed to provide evidence to dispute this, making in camera review unnecessary (paras 26-31). Lastly, the court determined that the SLO's declaratory judgment action did not constitute retaliation under the CRA, as it did not cause an injury that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from pursuing a claim, nor was it motivated by retaliation (paras 35-41).