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

• In 2008, the Village of Angel Fire conducted an election to establish a public improvement district (PID) within its boundaries, which was approved by the majority of voters. Subsequently, the PID entered into contracts to begin operations. Over a year later, a group of property owners, referred to as the Glaser group, filed a lawsuit challenging the PID's formation and the validity of a special levy it assessed, claiming procedural defects. The district court dismissed their lawsuit as time-barred, a decision later affirmed by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The PID, facing financial damages due to the lawsuit which delayed a significant loan, sued the Glaser group for over one million dollars, alleging various torts. The Glaser group counterclaimed for malicious abuse of process and moved to dismiss the PID's suit under the Anti-SLAPP statute, which the district court granted without resolving the counterclaim.

Procedural History

• Glaser v. LeBus, 2012-NMSC-012, ¶12, 276 P.3d 959: The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Glaser group's lawsuit as time-barred, holding that the PID's formation election and the levy assessment were valid.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (PID): Argued that the lawsuit filed by the Glaser group caused financial damages exceeding one million dollars due to tortious interference with contract, prospective contractual relations, prima facie tort, and malicious abuse of process.
• Defendants-Appellees (Glaser group): Filed a counterclaim for malicious abuse of process and argued for dismissal of the PID's lawsuit under the Anti-SLAPP statute and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Legal Issues

• Whether the dismissal of the PID's lawsuit under the Anti-SLAPP statute was from a final order.
• Whether the PID was permitted to take an expedited interlocutory appeal as of right under the Anti-SLAPP statute.
• Whether the Anti-SLAPP statute applies to the PID's lawsuit.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the Anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to the PID's lawsuit and dismissed the appeal, remanding for resumption of proceedings.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., concurring):
  The dismissal of the PID's lawsuit was not considered a final order due to the pending counterclaim, and the Anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to this case because the conduct in question was not protected as it was a lawsuit not in connection with quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court determined that the Anti-SLAPP statute is intended to protect against lawsuits retaliating against public speech and petition in quasi-judicial proceedings, which did not encompass the Glaser group's lawsuit challenging the PID's formation and levy assessment. The Court also noted that the PID's lawsuit did not fall under the protections of the Anti-SLAPP statute because it was not in response to conduct or speech made in connection with a public meeting or quasi-judicial proceeding.