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 claim arising from an agreement to grow medical cannabis under a single New Mexico licensed nonprofit producer (LNPP) license. Defendants, founders of Healthy Education Society (HES), licensed as an LNPP, offered Plaintiffs the right to grow 150 cannabis plants under HES's license on land owned by their son under Livingston Land, LLC. Plaintiffs were to pay the annual license fee, bear production costs, and sell the cannabis to Defendants, retaining all revenue. The contract was not in writing or disclosed to the Department of Health (DOH). Plaintiffs expanded their operation beyond the agreement, opening three dispensaries and failing to maintain proper accounting or provide financial information to HES, leading to regulatory violations and temporary suspensions of HES's operations. The parties sought to part ways in 2017, leading to litigation (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the district court erred in finding the contract illegal and void, contending that they proved damages during the trial (para 1).
• Defendants: Conceded that the district court erred in its judgment regarding the legality of the contract but maintained that Plaintiffs failed to prove damages (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in finding the contract illegal and void.
• Whether Plaintiffs proved damages during the trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with Defendants and the district court that Plaintiffs failed to prove damages (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Kristina Bogardus, with Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Katherine A. Wray concurring, found that even assuming the district court erred regarding the legality of the contract, Plaintiffs failed to challenge any of the district court's findings regarding damages. The court reviewed the district court's findings regarding damages for substantial evidence and concluded that Plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence to establish expenses. The court noted that Plaintiffs relied solely on the testimony of Plaintiff Clayton Brooker to prove damages, which the district court found unsupported by evidence, contradictory, and "untenable." The court adopted the district court's findings of fact, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Plaintiffs failed to prove damages. The court emphasized that admitted averments alone are not sufficient to prove the amount of damages and that Plaintiffs were obligated to provide evidence in support of the damages sought, which they failed to do (paras 8-14).