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

• La Mesa Racetrack and Casino, L.P. (La Mesa) was granted a racing license by the New Mexico Racing Commission to conduct live horse races in Raton, New Mexico, for the 2010 meet, requiring sixty days of live horse racing. Subsequently, La Mesa was granted a conditional gaming license by the New Mexico Gaming Control Board (Board), contingent upon meeting specific conditions, including construction completion and financial divestiture requirements. La Mesa failed to meet these conditions and did not conduct any live horse races during the 2010 meet, leading to the Board ruling that La Mesa's gaming license was void by statute.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Board: Argued that La Mesa's gaming license was void as a matter of law due to failure to conduct live horse races during its 2010 licensed race meet and that La Mesa had no ability to run live horse races for the remainder of its 2010 race meet.
• La Mesa: Contended that it satisfied a statutory exception for maintaining fewer than the required number of racing days or races by filing a request with the Racing Commission to vary its live racing dates.

Legal Issues

• Whether La Mesa's gaming license was rendered void by statute due to failure to conduct live horse races during the 2010 meet.
• Whether La Mesa's appeal of the Board's decision to void the gaming license was moot.
• Whether the Board's executive director had the authority to declare La Mesa's gaming license invalid without action by the Board.

Disposition

• The Board's decision to void La Mesa's gaming license was affirmed.
• La Mesa's first appeal was dismissed as moot.
• Summary judgment was granted against La Mesa in the second appeal.

Reasons

• The Court found that La Mesa's gaming license was automatically voided due to failure to conduct the required number of live horse races during its licensed meet, as stipulated by Section 60-2E-27(B)(2). La Mesa's argument that it satisfied an exception under Section 60-2E-27(F)(6) was rejected because it failed to submit written approval from the Racing Commission to vary the number of live race days or races. The Court also held that the issues raised in La Mesa's first appeal were moot because no relief could be granted, given that the gaming license had already been rendered void. In the second appeal, the Court agreed with the Board's conclusion that La Mesa's gaming license was automatically void and that the Board's executive director had the authority to notify La Mesa of this, or alternatively, that the Board had ratified the director's action. The Court's decision was based on the application of statutory interpretation principles, finding that the Board's actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law and were supported by substantial evidence in the record (paras 1-25).