Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Valley Meat Co.

• Decision Date: 14 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. CIV 14-1100 JB/KBM,CIV 14-1100 JB/KBM
• Parties: STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. HECTOR H. BALDERAS, Attorney General, State of New Mexico, Plaintiff, v. VALLEY MEAT COMPANY, LLC; RICARDO DE LOS SANTOS; MOUNTAIN VIEW PACKING, LLC; and DAIRYLAND PACKING, LLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. HECTOR H. BALDERAS, Attorney General,State of New Mexico,¹ Plaintiff, v. VALLEY MEAT COMPANY, LLC;RICARDO DE LOS SANTOS; MOUNTAIN VIEW PACKING, LLC; and DAIRYLAND PACKING, LLC, Defendants.

No. CIV 14-1100 JB/KBM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

December 14, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) D'Allende Meats, LLC's Motion to Reconsider Award of Costs and Fees, filed June 1, 2015 (Doc. 19)("Motion to Reconsider"); (ii) D'Allende Meats' Motion for Limited Discovery and to Stay Consideration, filed June 30, 2015 (Doc. 22)("Motion for Discovery"); and (iii) the State of New Mexico's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, and Memorandum in Support, filed June 22, 2015 (Doc. 21)("Motion for Fees"). The Court held a hearing on August 26, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should reconsider the portion of its Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed May 21, 2014 (Doc.16)("MOO"), that awarded costs and fees to Plaintiff State of New Mexico; (ii) whether the Court should allow D'Allende Meats to conduct limited discovery into the State of New Mexico's Motion for Fees; and (iii) whether the Court should award the State of New Mexico the fees and costs it seeks in its Motion for Fees. Because non-party D'Allende Meats does not present any reasons that the Court should change its award of costs and fees, the Court will deny the Motion to Reconsider with prejudice. Second, because discovery is not necessary to enable D'Allende Meats to respond to the Motion for Fees, the Court will deny the Motion for Discovery. Third, because the State of New Mexico sufficiently documents the time spent working to remand the case and seeks a reasonable hourly rate, the Court will grant the Motion for Fees.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Defendants own and operate a cattle slaughterhouse in Roswell, New Mexico. See Complaint ¶¶ 2-12, at 1-3, filed in state court December 19, 2013, filed in federal court December 12, 2014 (Doc. 2-2). They ceased operations in April, 2012, but they plan to reopen "in the imminent future." Complaint ¶ 14, at 3. When they reopen, however, they plan to slaughter horses -- rather than cattle -- and they plan to slaughter them for the purpose of human consumption. See Complaint ¶ 14, at 3. The State of New Mexico alleges that the Defendants committed numerous violations of environmental and health regulations even when they were slaughtering cattle, and that horses present much greater health concerns than cattle when their slaughter is done under poor sanitary conditions. See Complaint ¶¶ 15-32, at 3-8.

Horse slaughter for human consumption has not occurred anywhere in the United States of America in the last six years. See Complaint ¶ 46, at 13. Defendant Valley Meat Company, LLC, filed suit against the United States Department of Agriculture, however, and on June 28,2013, the USDA issued Valley Meat a "grant of inspection" permitting it to begin slaughtering horses. Complaint ¶ 48, at 13. On July 2, 2013, a group of individuals and nonprofit organizations filed suit in federal court against the USDA, demanding that it rescind its earlier decision. See Complaint ¶¶ 49-50, at 14. The State of New Mexico intervened in that suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, with the stated purpose of protecting New Mexico's groundwater and public health. See Complaint ¶¶ 49-50, at 14. The plaintiffs in that case were ultimately unsuccessful, and their suit was ultimately dismissed. See Complaint ¶ 51, at 14.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The State of New Mexico filed this suit in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico, on December 19, 2013. See Complaint at 1. It alleges four causes of action, each of which arises under New Mexico law. See Complaint ¶¶ 58-104, at 15-24. First, it alleges violations of the New Mexico Food Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-2-1 to -20. See Complaint ¶¶ 58-72, at 15-18. Second, it alleges violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-1 to -26. See Complaint ¶¶ 73-89, at 18-21. Third, it alleges violations of the New Mexico Water Quality Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 74-6-1 to -17. See Complaint ¶¶ 90-98, at 21-23. Fourth, it alleges common-law public nuisance. See Complaint ¶¶ 99-104, at 23-24.

Just under one year after filing, D'Allende Meats removed this case to federal court. See Notice of Removal at 1. Although it no longer holds this position, D'Allende Meats described itself as a "Defendant" in the Notice of Removal, even though it is not named as a Defendant in the Complaint. Complaint ¶¶ 1-10, at 1-3. It stated that, when it filed the removal, the state court was in the process of entertaining an "Expedited Motion seeking to enjoin non-party D'Allende (a wholly separate Texas company that had acquired Defendant's premises)." Noticeof Removal ¶ 2, at 1.² D'Allende Meats attached a copy of this motion to its Notice of Removal. See Plaintiff State of New Mexico's Expedited Motion to Enforce and Modify Preliminary Injunction, filed in state court December 2, 2014, filed in federal court December 4, 2014 (Doc. 2-3)("Expedited Motion"). The Expedited Motion's preliminary statement summarizes its content:

Just a few months ago, Defendants represented to the Court that they "are not operating and have no plans or ability to operate a horse processing facility," and on that asserted basis urged the Court to dismiss the State of New Mexico's claims as moot. Before the ink on their motion was dry, Defendants reneged on that representation. While insisting to the Court that they no longer have involvement or interest in commercial horse slaughter, Defendants simultaneously were busy creating a new shell company, through which they applied for the very same permits to conduct commercial horse slaughter that they had withdrawn only a few weeks earlier.

Those recent actions by Defendants, in concert with three non-parties -- the new shell company, D'Allende Meats, LLC, and its principals Jose Hernandez and Ryoichi Okubo -- necessitate this motion to enforce and to modify the Court's January 17, 2014 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction ("Preliminary Injunction") enjoining Defendants from pursuing horse slaughter. At a minimum, Defendants' actions are an effort to evade the Court's order; at worst, they represent an attempt by Defendants to perpetrate a fraud on the Court. In either event, the Court can and should enforce the Preliminary Injunction against the non-parties with whom Defendants are colluding (the "Affiliates") to bring commercial horse slaughter to New Mexico. In addition, the Preliminary Injunction should be modified to make clear that Defendants and their Affiliates may not undertake preparatory steps that, if completed, will necessarily result in a violation of the Preliminary Injunction.

The State files this motion on an expedited basis, see Local Rule 1-306(I), due to the demonstrated risk that Defendants and the Affiliates will continue their efforts to circumvent the Preliminary Injunction absent judicial intervention.

As required by Rule 1-007.1(C) NMRA, the undersigned requested opposing counsel's position on this motion, who responded in relevant part with a series of threats:

You are abusing the Attorney General's authority and this is absolutely malicious abuse of process. You lied to the Court in your supplemental notice. These individuals you are naming are not Valley Meat Company. If you file this we will add it to our Motion to Strike and for Sanctions. Please also be on Notice that we will be seeking sanctions against you personally, the state should not have to pay for your malfeasance. Further this should also be treated as Notice that if you file this we will file an action for malicious abuse of process against the Attorney General's Office you are potentially incurring liability by abusing the process. By the time the dust settles General King will have only succeeded in handing off a bucket of liability to General Balderas. This is truly bad form at the 11th hour.

Expedited Motion at 1-3. D'Allende Meats argued that it is not Defendant Valley Meat Co., LLC's shell company, and that the two companies are entirely distinct. See Notice of Removal ¶ 5, at 2. Again, although it no longer takes this position, it asserted that federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443 and 1446, i.e., civil-rights jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction in its Notice of Removal. See Notice of Removal at 1.

The State of New Mexico moved to remand eight days after removal, arguing that: (i) D'Allende Meats lacked "standing" to remove, Motion to Remand at 1; and (ii) there was no jurisdictional basis for removal under § 1443, see Motion to Remand at 9-15. The State of New Mexico asserted that § 1443(2) is "plainly inapplicable" to this case, because Congress designed that subsection for the limited purpose of allowing government-actor defendants who are sued for their refusal to enforce discriminatory state laws to remove cases against them to federal court. Motion to Remand at 10. As for § 1443's other subsection, the State of New Mexico contended, essentially, that it applies only to statutes designed to prevent racial discrimination. See Motion to Remand at 13. It asked the Court to remand the case, and to grant it costs and attorneys' fees. See Motion to Remand at 16-18.

In response, D'Allende Meats defended its decision to remove on the merits, but changed its purported jurisdictional basis from civil-rights jurisdiction under § 1443 to federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331. See Response to Motion for Remand and Costs ¶ 6, at 3, filed December 27, 2014 (Doc. 10). In reply, the State of New Mexico argued that the Court should not allow D'Allende Meats to assert a jurisdictional basis in the Response that it did not assert in the Notice of Removal. See Plaintiff State of New Mexico's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Its ...