Preview:

CAGAN V. VILLAGE OF ANGEL FIRE, 2005-NMCA-059, 137 N.M. 570, 113 P.3d 393
CAROL PLATT CAGAN, J.D. WOLF,
and LOBO LAND, LLC,
a New Mexico Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
VILLAGE OF ANGEL FIRE,
A.L. "BUBBA" CLANTON,
individually and in his capacity as Mayor of the Village,
and DON LUSK, individually and in his capacity as Village Administrator,
Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 24,142
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
2005-NMCA-059, 137 N.M. 570, 113 P.3d 393
April 14, 2005, Filed

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COLFAX COUNTY, Sam Sanchez, District Judge
Corrected June 1, 2005. Released for Publication May 24, 2005.
COUNSEL
Linda G. Hemphill, Stephanie A. Fuchs, Linda G. Hemphill, P.C., Santa Fe, NM, for Appellants James P. Sullivan, Gianna M. Mendoza, Sullivan Law Firm, P.A., Santa Fe, NM, for Appellees

JUDGES
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge AUTHOR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY

OPINION
KENNEDY, Judge.
{1} Carol Platt Cagan, J.D. Wolf, and Lobo Land (Plaintiffs), filed two cases against the Village of Angel Fire and its officials (referred to collectively as the Village).1 The first case (Case I) was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.  While the dismissal of Case I was pending, Plaintiffs filed a second case (Case II) that included claims similar to those in Case I. The district court granted summary judgment to the Village in Case II on grounds that collateral
estoppel and res judicata barred Plaintiffs' entire complaint as a result of the dismissal of Case I. It is from this order that Plaintiffs appeal.
{2} The application of res judicata does not require the end of one case to give it preclusive effect as against another. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of three of Plaintiffs' claims in Case II, as these claims are barred by res judicata. Lastly, one claim in Case II did not share enough in common with the Case I claims to be precluded by res judicata; as to that claim we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{3} This is not the first time Plaintiffs have asserted that the Village has made politically motivated decisions against established Village policies and ordinances concerning Plaintiffs' businesses. In Case I, on February 17, 2000, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Village.  The Case I complaint asserted a 42 U.S.C.

Download 2005-NMCA-059.pdf

New Mexico Law