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 Plaintiffs, Avallone Mechanical Company and Michael Avallone, challenged the City of Las Cruces' red light camera ordinance, referred to as the "STOP ordinance," on constitutional grounds. They argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional and contested the district court's award of attorney fees to the City (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, Darren M. Kugler, District Judge: The court granted the City of Las Cruces' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the district court erred in ruling that they are precluded from relitigating their constitutional claims against the City’s STOP ordinance, claimed the STOP ordinance is unconstitutional, and contested the award of attorney fees.
• Defendant-Appellee (City of Las Cruces): Supported the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims are barred by issue preclusion and that the award of attorney fees (included in the costs) was appropriate.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by ruling that Plaintiffs are precluded from relitigating their constitutional claims about the City’s STOP ordinance.
• Whether the STOP ordinance is unconstitutional.
• Whether the district court erred by awarding attorney fees.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, holding that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims are barred by issue preclusion and that there was no basis to reverse the award of attorney fees (para 1).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, the Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the district court erred by dismissing their complaint. The appellate court proposed to affirm the district court under the doctrine of "right for any reason," specifically that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims are barred by issue preclusion based on a previous memorandum order. The court noted that the Plaintiffs abandoned their second and third issues by not responding to the proposed disposition of those issues. The court found the Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed affirmation unresponsive, failing to plainly and specifically explain how their current issues differ from those previously decided. The court concluded that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims were both explicitly and implicitly rejected in the past and that their current claims are barred by issue preclusion (paras 2-7).