AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiff S&H Development, LLC entered into a contract with Defendant John Ortega for construction services. Ortega unlawfully utilized Defendant Cairol Parker’s general contractor license for the construction work. The work performed by Ortega was unsatisfactory to the Plaintiff, leading to a lawsuit against both Ortega and Parker. Parker allowed Ortega to use his license for a commercial remodel permit for Plaintiff's project, knowing Ortega was unlicensed (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Francis J. Mathew, District Judge: Judgment on the pleadings against Ortega, who did not appeal. The case against Parker was tried, resulting in a judgment in favor of Parker on Plaintiff’s liability claims and an award of attorney fees to Parker, finding Plaintiff’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA) claim groundless and frivolous (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that Parker, by allowing Ortega to use his license, was negligent, violated the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), and the Construction Industries Licensing Act through aiding and abetting, conspiracy theories, and a prima facie tort claim (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Parker): Defended against the claims, arguing that there was no evidence establishing Parker's actions as the proximate cause of the claimed damages, no evidence of intent to injure Plaintiff, and that the UPA claim was groundless (paras 4-5, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether Parker's actions constituted negligence, negligence per se, and violation of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA) and the Construction Industries Licensing Act through aiding and abetting, conspiracy theories, and a prima facie tort claim.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to Parker, finding Plaintiff’s UPA claim groundless and frivolous.

Disposition

• The district court's dismissal of Plaintiff’s liability claims against Parker was affirmed.
• The district court's award of attorney fees to Parker was reversed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals clarified that Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal regarding joint and several liability based on independent torts of aiding and abetting, collusion, and perhaps conspiracy were not pleaded as independent tort claims in Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court found no basis to imply a private right of action under the Construction Industries Licensing Act for these theories. It was determined that there was no explicit or implicit legislative intent to create a private remedy under the circumstances presented in this case, and providing such a remedy would not assist the underlying purpose or public policy of the Act. On the attorney fee issue, the Court held that the district court erred in determining that Plaintiff’s UPA claim was groundless, allowing an award of attorney fees. The Court concluded that the district court misconstrued Kreischer and Plaintiff’s arguments, leading to the reversal of the award of attorney fees (paras 8-23).