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 1997, the State of New Mexico, along with other states, filed a lawsuit against various tobacco manufacturers for damages related to the health effects of tobacco products on residents. This led to the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between the states and manufacturers, which included payment obligations and marketing restrictions for the manufacturers. Disputes arose regarding the allocation of payments and whether states had diligently enforced statutes imposing obligations on non-participating manufacturers, affecting the payments states received under the MSA (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State ex rel. King v. American Tobacco Co., 2008-NMCA-142, 145 N.M. 134, 194 P.3d 749: The court affirmed the district court's decision to compel arbitration of the State's diligent enforcement claim and supported the decision for a nationwide arbitration panel (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court erred in applying the law of the case doctrine from American Tobacco Co., contending that the facts and law had changed since that decision. The State raised concerns about the arbitration process, the number of participants, and the applicability of a Supreme Court decision on consolidated arbitration (paras 7-9).
• Defendants-Appellees (Tobacco Manufacturers): Argued that the ongoing 2004 NPM Adjustment arbitration involved the same agreement, clause, and issues as in American Tobacco Co. They urged the court to apply the law of the case doctrine to compel the State to arbitrate the matter (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the law of the case doctrine is applicable given the State's arguments that the facts and law have changed since the American Tobacco Co. decision (para 9).
• Whether the arbitration process for the 2004 NPM Adjustment dispute violates the MSA (para 13).
• Whether the current arbitration can be considered "nationwide" as contemplated in American Tobacco Co. (para 17).
• Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. affects the ability to compel the State into consolidated arbitration (para 21).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's decision to compel arbitration, holding that the law of the case doctrine applied and rejecting the State's arguments against the arbitration process, the characterization of the arbitration as "nationwide," and the applicability of Stolt-Nielsen S.A. (para 24).

Reasons

• Per VARGAS, J. (DUFFY, J., and IVES, J., concurring):
  The court found that the selection process for arbitrators did not violate the MSA and that the State had agreed to the possibility of arbitrating disputes alongside other states when it entered the MSA. The court also determined that the number of participants did not change the nature of the arbitration to something other than "nationwide" as previously decided (paras 13-20).
  The court concluded that the arbitration was not a class arbitration as defined by Stolt-Nielsen S.A., and therefore, the State's argument based on this precedent was misplaced. The arbitration involved only named parties to the MSA, and the rights of absent parties would not be adjudicated (paras 21-23).