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

• The Village of Ruidoso increased its wastewater rates for residential users to fund a new wastewater treatment plant required by a federal court consent judgment. Tierra Realty Trust, LLC, representing similarly situated residential wastewater and sewer customers, filed a lawsuit against the Village, alleging the rate increases were unreasonable and discriminatory. They sought injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and monetary damages (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the rate increases were unreasonable and discriminatory, violating NMSA 1978, Section 3-18-1(H), and the equal protection clause. Sought injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and monetary damages. Contended that the proposed class met the criteria for class certification under Rule 1-023(B)(1)(a) or (B)(3), emphasizing commonality and typicality among class members (paras 3-5, 16).
• Defendant: Opposed class certification for monetary damages, raising affirmative defenses of voluntary payment, laches, and estoppel. Argued that individual issues regarding voluntary payment and duress would predominate over common issues, making the damages claim difficult to manage (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying class certification for monetary damages under Rule 1-023 NMRA (para 1).
• Whether the Plaintiff met the prerequisites of Rule 1-023(A) for class certification (para 5).
• Whether the class action for monetary damages was maintainable under Rule 1-023(B)(1)(a) or (B)(3) (para 16).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of class certification for monetary damages was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 1).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court found that the district court abused its discretion by denying class certification for monetary damages, as its decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The district court incorrectly applied the legal standard for commonality by considering issues of management and predominance, which are criteria under Rule 1-023(B)(3), not under the commonality prerequisite of Rule 1-023(A). The court also determined that the Plaintiff's claims were typical of the claims of the class, contrary to the district court's findings. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the class under Rule 1-023(B)(1) but reversed the denial under Rule 1-023(B)(3), concluding that questions common to the class members regarding damages predominated over any questions affecting only individual members. The case was remanded for findings regarding superiority under Rule 1-023(B)(3), which the district court failed to consider (paras 7-34).