HIGHWAY & TRANSP. DEPT. v. SUNLAND PARK

• Decision Date: 08 February 2000
• Docket Number: No. 19,570.,19,570.
• Citation: 129 N.M. 151,3 P.3d 128
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, ex rel., STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF NEW MEXICO, Petitioner, v. CITY OF SUNLAND PARK, Respondent-Appellant. Paseo Del Norte Limited Partnership, a New Mexico limited partnership, Petitioner, v. City of Sunland Park, Respondent-Appellant, v. Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

3 P.3d 128

129 N.M. 151

STATE of New Mexico, ex rel., STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF NEW MEXICO, Petitioner, v. CITY OF SUNLAND PARK, Respondent-Appellant.

Paseo Del Norte Limited Partnership, a New Mexico limited partnership, Petitioner, v. City of Sunland Park, Respondent-Appellant, v. Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 19,570.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

February 8, 2000.

Certiorari Denied May 25, 2000.

Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, William T. Moyers, Special Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, for Petitioner State of New Mexico.

Frank R. Coppler, Nancy E. Nickerson, Paul D. Mannick, Coppler & Mannick, P.C., Santa Fe, for Respondent-Appellant.

Donald M. Salazar, Serina M. Garst, Rubin, Katz, Salazar, Alley & Rouse, P.C., Santa Fe, for Petitioner Paseo del Norte Limited Partnership.

Thomas R. Figart, Doña Ana County Legal Department, Las Cruces, for Intervenor-Appellee.

Certiorari Denied, No. 26,262, May 25, 2000.

OPINION

BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

{1} The City of Sunland Park (the City) appeals the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction ordering the City to either remove or abandon a pipeline it constructed on Doña Ana County (County) land to deliver water to land it sought to annex. The City makes numerous arguments on appeal, which can be roughly summarized as follows: (1) the district court lacked equity jurisdiction to hear and enter the injunction; (2) the requirements for issuing an injunction were not met; and (3) a municipality with the power of eminent domain cannot be considered a trespasser for purposes of entering an injunction. We determine that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the injunction but that the County did not demonstrate it would be irreparably harmed by the City's construction of the pipeline. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions that the district court withdraw the injunction.

FACTS

{2} In 1997, the City, acting on the petition of a nearby landowner, passed an ordinance seeking to annex approximately thirty-seven acres of land. The land the City sought to annex included that of the annexation petitioner, as well as certain public lands that lay between the City's existing boundary and the petitioner's land. Shortly after the City passed the ordinance, the New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department (the Highway Department) and Paseo Del Norte Limited Partnership (PDN) appealed the annexation to the Third Judicial District Court pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 3-7-17(C) (1998), and Rule 1-074 NMRA 2000. The Highway Department and the County subsequently moved to add the County as a party to the annexation appeal because of possible questions concerning the ownership of some of the public land included in the annexation. Over the City's objection, the district court granted the motion.

{3} For a more thorough discussion of the facts surrounding the annexation, see State ex rel. State Highway & Transportation Department v. City of Sunland Park, 1999-NMCA-143, 128 N.M. 371, 993 P.2d 85 (State ex rel. Highway Dep't I ). In that case we held that the County's motion to intervene was untimely and should not have been granted. See id. ¶ 11. We also held, however, that the attempted annexation was invalid because the City failed to comply with one of the relevant provisions of the Municipal Code having to do with the annexation of territory. See id. ¶¶ 17-25.

{4} Following passage of the annexation ordinance, but during the pendency of the appeal to district court, the City began constructing an underground pipeline to provide water service to the annexed land. The pipeline was to be composed of two sections: one section underlying an unused railroad bed and running from the City's existing water facility to State Highway 136, the other underlying the right of way along a portion of State Highway 136, adjacent to but outside a portion of the State Highway 136 right of way the City included in the annexation ordinance, and running to the land owned by the annexation petitioner. The City's effort to condemn a utility easement along the railroad bed was the subject of City of Sunland Park v. Paseo Del Norte Ltd. Partnership, 1999-NMCA-124, 128 N.M. 163, 990 P.2d 1286. Because the district court had not yet awarded damages, we concluded that the order appealed from was not final, and we dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See id. ¶¶ 11, 20. This appeal involves only the portion of the pipeline paralleling State Highway 136.

{5} Before beginning construction, the City applied for and was issued a permit by the Highway Department to construct the portion of the pipeline paralleling State Highway 136. The City then hired a private contractor to begin installing the pipeline. Soon thereafter, the Highway Department sought to revoke the permit. The City successfully moved to prevent the Highway Department from revoking the permit by obtaining a restraining order in the First Judicial District Court in Cause Number SF 97-2891(c). The Third Judicial District Court took judicial notice of that action in this case.

{6} Upon learning of the construction, the County, which by this time had been made a party to the appeal of the annexation, sought a temporary restraining order of its own to prevent the City from proceeding with construction of the pipeline pending resolution of the annexation appeal. In support of its position, the County argued that to allow Sunland Park to continue installing the pipeline "w[ould] prejudice the authority and prerogative of the County to serve the subject-matter property and surrounding area with water service if the annexation [were] not approved by the [district c]ourt." The district court granted the County's request, finding that "good cause exist[ed] for [a] Restraining Order." Several days later, following a hearing, the district court continued and modified the temporary restraining order until after the court heard and ruled on the merits of all of the issues before it. The district court specifically ordered that if the City chose to resume construction of the pipeline it would "assume[ ] the risk" that the court might "require [the City] to abandon or remove the pipeline in place."

{7} The district court held a hearing on both the annexation and pipeline construction issues on February 6 and February 11-13, 1998. The record reflects that the district court made sure to keep the testimony and argument on the two issues separate. Several months later the district court entered its order concerning the pipeline. It found that the County owned the right of way along State Highway 136, under which the City had begun constructing the pipeline. It also found that "[t]he County has no adequate remedy at law and w[ould] be irreparably harmed if the City's pipeline [were] completed and used to deliver water utilities under the City's plan because it would be disruptive of the County water and wastewater plans for the same area." Accordingly, the court made the injunction permanent but stayed it temporarily. The court ordered the City to, after the stay was lifted, "give the County notice that it ha[d] abandoned the pipeline or, alternatively, if the City ch[ose] to remove the pipeline, ... [to] present the County with its plan of action to remove the pipeline[,] which removal [was to] take place within a reasonable time." It is from this order that the City appeals.

DISCUSSION

1. Jurisdiction of the District Court to Issue the Injunction

A. Jurisdiction to Hear and Issue the Injunction in the Context of the Annexation Appeal

{8} The City first argues that the district court's jurisdiction was limited by Rule 1-074. Specifically, the City argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear and issue the injunction because the scope of review at the hearing was limited by Rule 1-074 to the annexation appeal and because the County failed to file a proper pleading under either Rule 1-074 or Rule 1-003 NMRA 2000. We disagree.

{9} In essence, the City seems to be arguing that the district court could not exercise its appellate and original jurisdictions concurrently. Of course, we agree that under Rule 1-074 review of the annexation was limited "to consideration of whether it was enacted in accordance with the governing statute." State ex rel. Highway Dep't I, 1999-NMCA-143, ¶ 17, 128 N.M. 371, 993 P.2d 85. We see no reason why, however, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the district court could not at the same time exercise its equitable jurisdiction.

{10} The district courts of this State have broad jurisdiction—legal and equitable, original and appellate. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 13; Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078, ¶ 27, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153. As our Supreme Court noted in Sims, "Under our court rules, there is `one form of action to be known as "civil action",' in which all claims may be joined and all remedies are available." Id. ¶ 27 (quoting Rule 1-002 NMRA 2000) (emphasis added). Moreover, "[e]quity favors the prevention of a multiplicity of actions, and the interposition of a court of equity may be invoked to prevent a multiplicity of actions." 27A Am.Jur.2d Equity § 23 (1996). Thus, "where a court of equity has all the parties before it, it will adjudicate upon all of the rights of the parties connected with the subject matter of the action, so as to avoid a multiplicity of suits." Burnworth v. Hughes, 234 Kan. 69, 670 P.2d 917, 922 (1983); see also Lougee v. New Mexico Bureau of Revenue Comm'r, 42 N.M. 115, 132, 76 P.2d 6, 16 (1938); State ex rel. Stenberg v. Moore, 253 Neb. 535, 571 N.W.2d 317, 322 (1997); 27A Am.Jur.2d Equity § 24 (discussing the factors courts consider in determining whether to exercise equity jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits); id. § 25 ("[T]here is no fixed number of actions which will constitute a multiplicity of suits so as to require or justify the assumption of equitable...