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 case involves a breach of contract action between the Board of Regents of New Mexico State University (NMSU) and Roof & Metal Co., LLC (Appellee). The contract was for the reroofing of three campus buildings, with disputes arising over the roofing work on the third building. NMSU challenged the validity of the contract, citing violations related to business formation, construction licensing, and public works contracts by Appellee. The district court found a valid written contract between the parties, leading to NMSU's appeal on grounds of sovereign immunity (paras 1, 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee: Argued that NMSU breached the contract by failing to pay for roofing work on the third building (para 4).
• NMSU: Contended that the contract was invalid due to Appellee's failure to comply with statutory requirements related to business formation, construction licensing, and public works contracts. Additionally, NMSU raised a sovereign immunity defense based on NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-23(A) (paras 1, 5-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying NMSU’s claim for sovereign immunity based on the alleged invalidity of the contract due to statutory violations by Appellee (para 1).
• Whether the contract between NMSU and Appellee was valid and enforceable (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals quashed the writ of error and remanded for trial, holding that the factual context and procedural posture of the case supported denying collateral review (para 16).

Reasons

• Per WRAY, J. (DUFFY, J., and BUSTAMANTE, J., retired, sitting by designation, concurring): The court determined that NMSU's late assertion of sovereign immunity, based on the alleged invalidity of the contract, was not appropriate for collateral review under the collateral order doctrine. The court emphasized that NMSU had effectively waived many benefits of immunity from suit by engaging in extensive litigation over two years and only raising the immunity issue days before the scheduled trial. The court found that the issues raised by NMSU were fact-intensive and best suited for trial, noting that the evidence supporting immunity had been available long before the filing of the Notice. The court concluded that proceeding to trial would reduce delays and avoid piecemeal appeals, thus denying collateral review (paras 9-15).