Logan v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 11 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. CIV 15–0785 JB/KK,CIV 15–0785 JB/KK
• Citation: 163 F.Supp.3d 1007
• Parties: Stewart Logan ; Carol Taubee; and Clyde Ward, Plaintiffs, v. Public Employees Retirement Association; Public Employees Retirement Association Board; Patricia French ; Paula Fisher; Roman Jimenez, Jackie Kohlasch; Dan Mayfield, Loretta Naranjo Lopez, and John Reynolds, in their official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

163 F.Supp.3d 1007

Stewart Logan ; Carol Taubee; and Clyde Ward, Plaintiffs,

v.Public Employees Retirement Association; Public Employees Retirement Association Board; Patricia French ; Paula Fisher; Roman Jimenez, Jackie Kohlasch; Dan Mayfield, Loretta Naranjo Lopez, and John Reynolds, in their official capacities, Defendants.

No. CIV 15–0785 JB/KK

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed January 11, 2016

Marc M. Lowry, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom & Schoenburg, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for the Plaintiffs

David Anthony Roman, Charles H. Rennick, Robles Rael & Anaya, PC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support, filed November 4, 2015 (Doc. 22)(“Motion”).

The Court held a hearing on December 1, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the proposed injunction would alter the relevant status quo; (ii) whether the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm between now and a full trial on the merits if the Court were to not issue the requested preliminary injunction; (iii) whether the injury that the Plaintiffs would sustain in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction outweighs the injury that the issuance of the requested preliminary injunction would cause the Defendants; (iv) whether issuing the requested preliminary injunction would be adverse to the public interest; and (v) whether the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights by preventing Logan from becoming a candidate for the “county position” on the Public Employees Retirement Association's (“PERA”) Board of Directors (“PERA Board”) and cancelling the election.

First, the Court concludes that the relevant status quo is the situation before April 8, 2015, when Plaintiff Stewart Logan was a viable candidate for the county seat and the parties' dispute had not yet begun, and that the proposed injunction will not alter the status quo. Second, the Court concludes that the harms that the requested injunction seeks to prevent would be irreparable. Third, the Court concludes that the harm to the Plaintiffs in the absence of the preliminary injunction outweighs the relatively minor expenses that the preliminary injunction would impose on the PERA. Fourth, the Court concludes that the requested preliminary injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Finally, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs do not have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim. The substantial-likelihood-of-success standard is a necessarily speculative one, which does not require the Plaintiffs to carry their full burden of proof at the preliminary-injunction stage. Still, the Plaintiffs' claims are speculative, and they have not cited any cases directly on point. Because failure on any of the four prongs necessitates denial of a preliminary injunction, the Court will deny the Motion.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Pursuant to rule 52(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will make formal findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its disposition of the Motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(2), 65(d)(1).¹ The Court divides its findings of fact into two sections: first, the Court will first introduce the parties; and second, it will outline the timeline of events in this case.

1. The Parties.

1. The PERA “is a statutorily created association whose members are designated under N.M. Stat. Ann.1978, § 10–11–3.” First Amended Complaint for Declaratory, Preliminary, and Permanent Injunctive Relief ¶ 9, at 3, filed in state court September 2, 2015, filed in federal court September 4, 2015 (Doc. 1–3)(“Complaint”).²

2. The PERA is “a 401(a) qualified government plan governed by the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Act.” About PERA, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/about (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

3. The PERA administers the primary pension plan for state and municipal employees in New Mexico, with the exception of teachers, who use the separate New Mexico Educational Retirement Board. See About PERA, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, http://www.nmpera.org/about (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

4. The PERA “manages 31 retirement plans and two benefit tiers for state, municipal and county employees. This includes police, firefighters, judges, magistrates, legislators and volunteer firefighters. The association also manages retirement plans for other political subdivisions, such as special districts and housing authorities.” About PERA, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/about (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

5. Defendant PERA Board governs the PERA and appoints its Executive Director, who manages day-to-day operations. See Board of Trustees, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

6. The PERA Board has twelve members: four under a state coverage plan, whom state members elect; three under a municipal coverage plan, whom municipal members elect; one municipal member who is a county employee, whom municipal members elect; two retired members, whom PERA retirees elect; the New Mexico Secretary of State (ex officio); and the New Mexico State Treasurer (ex officio). See Board of Trustees, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

7. The PERA Board's mission is “to preserve, protect, and administer the trust to meet its current and future obligations and provide quality services to Association members.” Board of Trustees, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

8. Plaintiff Stewart Logan, who works in Farmington, New Mexico, currently holds the county board member position on the PERA's Board. See Motion at 3.

9. Logan seeks to retain this position. See Complaint ¶ 6, at 2–3.

10. Plaintiff Carol Taubee is a qualified voter for the county seat election for the PERA Board. See Complaint ¶ 7, at 3.

11. Taubee made a nomination³ for Logan. See Motion at 3.

12. Plaintiff Clyde Ward is a qualified voter for the county seat election for the PERA Board. See Complaint ¶ 8, at 3. 13. Ward also made a nomination for Logan. See Motion at 3.

14. Defendant Patricia French is the Chair of the PERA Board and one of its Municipal Members. See Board Membership, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees/leadership (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

15. French has held both of these positions during the relevant events. See Complaint ¶ 11, at 3.

16. Defendant Paula Fisher is one of the PERA Board's State Members. See Complaint ¶ 12, at 3.

17. Fisher held this position during the relevant events. See Complaint ¶ 12, at 3.

18. Defendant Roman Jimenez was one of the PERA Board's State Members at the time of the relevant events. See Complaint ¶ 13, at 4.

19. Jimenez is no longer a PERA Board member. See Board Membership, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees/leadership (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

20. Defendant Jackie Kohlasch is one of the PERA Board's State Members. See Board Membership, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees/leadership (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

21. Kohlasch held this position during the relevant events. See Complaint ¶ 14, at 4.

22. Defendant Daniel Mayfield is one of the PERA Board's Retiree Members. See Board Membership, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees/leadership (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

23. Mayfield held this position during the relevant events. See Complaint ¶ 15, at 4.

24. Defendant Loretta Naranjo Lopez is one of the PERA Board's Retiree Members. See Board Membership, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees/leadership (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

25. Naranjo Lopez held this position during the relevant events. See Complaint ¶ 16, at 4.

26. Defendant John Reynolds is one of the PERA Board's State Members. See Board Membership, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees/leadership (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

27. Reynolds held this position during the relevant events. See Complaint ¶ 17, at 4.

2. The Timeline of Events.

28. The PERA Board's members serve four-year terms. See Board Elections, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico , http://www.nmpera.org/board-of-trustees/elections (last visited Jan. 9, 2016).

29. On January 13, 2015, the PERA Board held a meeting and adopted Resolution 15–04, which governed its next round of elections. See Motion at 3; Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support at 2, filed November 25, 2015 (Doc. 24)(“Response”).

30. Resolution 15–04 states that nominations for the PERA Board's county seat election were required to be “completed and filed with PERA not later than 5:00 p.m. on April 14, 2015.” Motion at 3; Response at 2 (using identical language).

31. Potential candidates had to obtain 150 nominations to qualify as candidates. See Motion at 3; Response at 3.

32. The Defendants now state that Resolution 15–04's Tuesday, April 14, 2015 date was a typographical error, and the date should have been Monday, April 13, 2015. See Response at 2, 4–5.

33. The PERA Board provided printed election materials to possible candidates that identified the deadline as April 13, 2015. See Motion at 17; Response at 4–5.

34. Logan submitted eighty-four valid nominations before April 13, 2015. See Motion ...