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

• Two construction companies, Plaintiff Gandydancer, LLC, and Defendant Rock House CGM, LLC, both provided railroad contracting services to BNSF Railway Company. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant performed unlicensed construction work, violating the Construction Industries Licensing Act (CILA), and used confidential trade secrets from Plaintiff's former employees to secure contracts with BNSF without disclosing its unlicensed status (paras 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA) claim and certified the question of whether the UPA affords standing to business competitors to the Court of Appeals for interlocutory review (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendant's unlicensed operation and use of trade secrets to secure contracts constituted unfair competition under the UPA, affecting consumer protection concerns and trade practices addressed to the market generally (paras 2, 12-13, 23).
• Defendant: Contended that the UPA's intent to protect consumers limits its standing to buyers of goods and services, not business competitors. Defendant also argued that allowing a UPA claim for failing to obtain a license usurps government regulatory authority and that Plaintiff failed to state a viable UPA claim (paras 4, 6, 25).

Legal Issues

• Whether the UPA allows a business competitor standing to bring a private right of action against another business for unfair competition practices (para 1).
• Whether Plaintiff's allegations constitute a viable UPA claim (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's UPA claim (para 28).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Vargas, held that a business competitor may sue under the UPA if the conduct alleged involves consumer protection concerns or trade practices addressed to the market generally. This interpretation aligns with the UPA's plain language and its remedial consumer protection purpose. The Court rejected Defendant's arguments that the UPA's standing is limited to buyers of goods and services and that Plaintiff's claim usurps government regulatory authority. The Court found that Plaintiff's allegations of Defendant's unlicensed operation and misleading practices towards BNSF Railway Company implicated consumer protection concerns and trade practices addressed to the market generally, thus granting Plaintiff standing under the UPA (paras 5-24).