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

• Loretta Naranjo Lopez, a board member of the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA), responded to a request for comment from the Investments and Pensions Oversight Committee of the New Mexico State Legislature. In her response, she summarized her previous statements to the PERA Board, reporting financial crimes, felonies, and types of misconduct and governance weaknesses by the PERA Board. Subsequently, an Ad Hoc Committee was formed to investigate her allegations, and she was informed that she might be expelled from the PERA Board. Her requests for indemnification and defense counsel in relation to this investigation were denied, leading her to file a complaint seeking indemnification, a defense, and damages under various legal provisions (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in dismissing her claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), Public Employees Retirement Act (PERA Act), Tort Claims Act (TCA), and for willful neglect of duty. She contended that she was entitled to indemnification, a defense, and damages for reporting misconduct and that her motion for leave to amend her complaint was unjustly denied (paras 5-17).
• Defendants-Appellees: Moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that as a PERA Board member, the Plaintiff was not a "public employee" under the WPA, had not demonstrated entitlement to indemnification under the PERA Act, and had not shown that any tort claims against her triggered a duty to defend under the TCA. They also opposed the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint (paras 6, 9, 11, 16-18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff, as a PERA Board member, qualifies as a "public employee" under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to indemnification under the Public Employees Retirement Act for defense costs related to the Ad Hoc Committee's investigation.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a defense under the Tort Claims Act for torts allegedly committed while acting within the scope of her duty.
• Whether the Plaintiff's claim for willful neglect of duty was properly dismissed.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint was affirmed.
• The district court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint was affirmed.

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge: Concluded that the Plaintiff, as a PERA Board member, does not qualify as a "public employee" under the WPA, and therefore, her claim for retaliation under the WPA was properly dismissed (paras 6-8). The court also found that the Plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating entitlement to indemnification under the PERA Act or that any tort claims against her triggered a duty to defend under the TCA (paras 9-15). The claim for willful neglect of duty was dismissed because it was predicated on underlying violations that were not established (para 16). The denial of the motion for leave to amend was upheld due to the Plaintiff's failure to attach a proposed pleading as required by Rule 1-007.1(C) NMRA (paras 17-18).
  Concurrence: J. MILES HANISEE, Judge; KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurred with DUFFY, Judge's opinion and reasoning, affirming the district court's decisions (para 20).