Madrid v. Vill. of Chama

• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
• Citation: 283 P.3d 871,2012 -NMCA- 071
• Docket Number: No. 30,764.,30,764.
• Parties: Jonathan MADRID, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF CHAMA, Defendant–Appellee.
• Decision Date: 29 June 2012

283 P.3d 871

2012 -NMCA- 071

Jonathan MADRID, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.VILLAGE OF CHAMA, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 30,764.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

May 1, 2012.

Certiorari Denied, June 29, 2012, No. 33,651.

Serra & Garrity, P.C., Diane Garrity, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

Scheuer, Yost & Patterson, P.C., Tony F. Ortiz, Kristin L. Davidson, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1} Plaintiff Jonathan Madrid appeals from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Defendant Village of Chama (the Village). We address two issues on appeal: (1) whether Madrid was required to appeal the Village's administrative decision terminating his employment by petitioning the district court for a writ of certiorari and (2) whether the district court erred when it concluded that Madrid failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted because the Village's employee handbook, Village of Chama, N.M., Personnel Policies 1999–01 (the Ordinance), clearly stated that it did not create an implied contract. We reverse. We hold that Madrid was not required to petition the district court for a writ of certiorari. Thus, Madrid's failure to timely appeal the decision pursuant to Rule 1–075(D) NMRA was not a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal. We further hold that the district court erred in granting the Village's Rule 1–012(B)(6) NMRA motion for failure to state a claim. Finally, we clarify that our courts should not evaluate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

BACKGROUND

{2} Plaintiff was discharged from his employment with the Village on July 15, 2009. Proceeding under Article IX, Section 9.140 of the Ordinance, Madrid filed a request for a post-termination (appeal) hearing in order to contest the allegations that led to his termination. The appeal hearing was scheduled for July 22, 2009, and Madrid's appeal was listed as an agenda item for the meeting. During the meeting, the Village Council attempted to change the appeal hearing to a pre-termination hearing. The next day, the Mayor issued a letter stating that Madrid was terminated at that time even though Madrid had been terminated since July 15, 2009, and had not received any income from the Village since that date.

{3} Madrid timely appealed the July 23, 2009 termination decision and, on September 8, 2009, the Council conducted a post-termination hearing. After a full vote by the Village Council with the Mayor present, Madrid was fired from his position. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the Village was required to inform Madrid of its final decision in writing within fourteen days. Village of Chama, N.M., Personnel Policies 1999–01, art. IX, § 9.140(iv). On October 13, 2009, more than a month after the appeal hearing, the Mayor signed the letter notifying Madrid of the Village's decision to terminate his employment.

{4} Madrid filed a complaint in district court on December 9, 2009, seeking damages for breach of implied contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful discharge. Specifically, Madrid stated that he was fired from his position with the Village without just cause and that the Village had breached its contract with him. On January 11, 2010, the Village filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 1–012(B)(6) and 1–075(D), (P)(1). The district court granted the Village's motion without a hearing and entered its order on March 11, 2010. The district court found that Madrid failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted because the Ordinance did not create an implied contract. Madrid filed a motion for reconsideration that was also denied by written order without a hearing. Madrid now appeals the dismissal of his claims for breach of implied contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

DISCUSSION

{5} In this case, the Village based its motion to dismiss Madrid's complaint in the district court on Rules 1–075 and 1–012(B)(6). Under Rule 1–075, when appeals arise out of administrative proceedings, the district court takes up the issues under its appellate jurisdiction. The proper procedure to appeal such decisions is to petition the district court for a writ of certiorari within thirty days of the agency's written decision. Rule 1–075(D). The district court here did not address the Village's Rule 1–075 argument in its order of dismissal. However, whether the Village's decision was reviewable only by a writ of certiorari and whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Madrid's claims brought in an original complaint are questions we must answer in the first instance. We address this issue first because appeals from courts that lack subject matter jurisdiction will confer no jurisdiction on this Court. State Human Rights Comm'n v. Accurate Mach. & Tool Co., 2010–NMCA–107, ¶ 4, 149 N.M. 119, 245 P.3d 63,cert. denied,2010–NMCERT–010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146. Once we have decided the jurisdictional question, we then consider Madrid's argument that the district court erred in granting the Village's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 1–075

{6} Whether the district court possessed jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is a question of law that we review de novo. State Human Rights Comm'n, 2010–NMCA–107, ¶ 4, 149 N.M. 119, 245 P.3d 63.

{7} The Village argued below, as it does here, that the sole procedure available to Madrid in this case was to appeal his termination decision by petitioning the district court for a writ of certiorari, that he did not do so within thirty days of the written notice of termination as required by Rule 1–075(D), and that he therefore failed to perfect a timely appeal. As a result, the Village contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Madrid's complaint as a threshold matter. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

{8} The Village relies on Zamora v. Village of Ruidoso Downs, 120 N.M. 778, 780, 907 P.2d 182, 184 (1995), for the proposition that an agency's termination decision is reviewable at the district court only by writ of certiorari. In that case, the plaintiff was injured in a nonwork-related accident and took a six-month disability leave without pay. Id. After receiving a partial medical release, the plaintiff requested to be assigned to light duty, but the mayor refused until the plaintiff received a full medical release. Id. The plaintiff did not obtain a full release and was ultimately terminated. Id. at 780, 781–82, 907 P.2d at 184, 185–86. The board of trustees heard the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the mayor's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. Id. at 781–82, 907 P.2d at 185–86. The plaintiff filed a complaint in district court for breach of employment contract and wrongful termination, alleging that the village of Ruidoso's ordinance required the village to assign him to light-duty work. Id. at 780, 907 P.2d at 184. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because the only procedure available to the plaintiff to appeal the village's personnel decision was to petition the district court for a writ of certiorari. Id. at 786, 907 P.2d at 190.

{9} We conclude that Zamora is distinguishable from this case. In Zamora, the plaintiff's complaint asserted that the Village of Ruidoso Downs refused to assign him to light-duty work in contravention of the ordinance's requirements. Id. at 780, 907 P.2d at 184. Our Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff's argument was essentially an appeal of a question already considered by the board—that the plaintiff was properly terminated under the ordinance because he had not received a full medical release to return to work. Id. at 781–82, 907 P.2d at 185–86. Therefore, the procedure for the plaintiff to appeal the board's administrative decision was to petition the district court for a writ of certiorari. Id. at 786, 907 P.2d at 190. There is nothing in Zamora that suggests the plaintiff was pursuing only an award of damages. Here, although Madrid exhausted his administrative remedies, he is not appealing the Village's decision, and he is not seeking reinstatementto his position as a street supervisor for the Village. In our view, this distinction is dispositive because Madrid filed suit seeking only monetary damages as a result the Village's alleged wrongful action. The Village presents no persuasive argument or authority for its contention that an aggrieved employee, who has exhausted his administrative remedies, is prohibited from bringing a common law action for damages by filing a complaint in district court. Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists. In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1984).

{10} The Village also cites to Barreras v. State of New Mexico Corr. Dep't, 2003–NMCA–027, ¶ 2, 133 N.M. 313, 62 P.3d 770, in which we considered whether the Legislature intended the State Personnel Act (SPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 10–9–1 to –25 (1961, as amended through 2009), to be the exclusive remedy for state employees alleging contract claims based on rights created in the SPA. In that case, the central question before us was whether an aggrieved employee who wished to enforce his rights under the SPA could bypass the administrative procedure and remedies set forth in the SPA and proceed directly to district court on a theory of implied contract. Barreras, 2003–NMCA–027, ¶ 7, 133 N.M. 313, 62 P.3d 770.Barreras is also distinguishable. Here, Madrid did not attempt to bypass the administrative procedure set forth in the Ordinance altogether. In fact, Madrid timely exhausted all his remedies before the Village Council prior to filing his complaint in district court.

{11} Further, to the...