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 City of Rio Rancho terminated James Palenick, its City Manager, in a meeting that was later found by the New Mexico Attorney General to have violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). The City attempted to retroactively cure this violation eleven months after the termination. Palenick sued the City, claiming enforcement of the OMA and breach of contract for unpaid salary and benefits from the period between his initial termination and the attempted retroactive cure (paras 1-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, George P. Eichwald, District Judge: Dismissed Plaintiff's OMA enforcement claim for lack of jurisdiction and ruled against Plaintiff on his breach of contract claim, holding that the City's retroactive cure was effective, and that Plaintiff waived his breach of contract claim by accepting severance benefits (paras 6-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that his termination was invalid due to the City's violation of the OMA, that he remained employed and was entitled to salary and benefits until the City's corrective action, and that he did not waive his rights to these by accepting severance benefits. Also contended entitlement to attorney fees and costs under the OMA (para 8).
• Defendant (City of Rio Rancho): Contended that the retroactive cure of the OMA violation was valid, that Plaintiff's acceptance of severance benefits constituted a waiver of his breach of contract claim, and that Plaintiff failed to prove an essential element of his breach of contract claim, namely, that the City violated the OMA (paras 9, 11-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the City's attempt to retroactively cure its violation of the OMA was effective.
• Whether Plaintiff's acceptance of severance benefits constituted a waiver of his breach of contract claim.
• Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs under the OMA (paras 9, 11, 14).

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings on whether Plaintiff is entitled to salary and benefits for any period following his initial termination.
• The court affirmed the district court's denial of Plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs (para 17).

Reasons

• The court held that the City's later attempt to make its invalid termination valid was not effective, as no authority supports the retroactive application to cure violations of the OMA in such a manner (para 9).
  The court found that Plaintiff's acceptance of severance benefits did not constitute a waiver of his right to salary and benefits under his employment agreement, as the circumstances did not permit a determination of waiver (para 11).
  The court rejected the City's argument that the district court was right for the wrong reason, noting that the City did not appeal the determination that it violated the OMA and that Plaintiff had limited his evidence at trial based on the court's pre-trial ruling on the issue of retroactivity (para 12).
  Regarding attorney fees, the court concluded that, given the dismissal of the OMA enforcement claim and the peculiar circumstances, the court could not enforce the Act by awarding attorney fees and costs under the Act (para 16).