December 26, 2012 – State of New Mexico, ex rel. Frank C. Foy and Suzanne B. Foy v. Austin Capital Management, No. 31,421

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Opinion Number:

Filing Date: December 26, 2012

NO. 31,421

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel.
FRANK C. FOY AND SUZANNE B.
FOY,

Qui Tam Plaintiffs-A ppellants,
V.

AUSTIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LTD,;

AUSTIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GP CORP.;
CHARLES W. RILEY; BRENT A. MARTIN;

DAVID E. FRIEDMAN; WILL JASON ROTTINGER;
VICTORY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC,;
KEYCORP; BEREAN CAPITAL; DUDLEY BROWN;
TREMONT GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.;
OPPENHEIMER FUNDS, INC.; GARY BLAND;
DAVID CONTARINO; BRUCE MALOTT; MEY NERS
AND CO.; MARC CORRERA; ANTHONY CORRERA;
SANDIA ASSET MANAGEMENT; ALFRED JACKSON;
DAVIS HAMILTON AND JACKSON; GUY RIORDAN;
JUNIPER CAPITAL; EILEEN KOTECKI; DAN
HEVEST, HENRY “HANK” MORRIS; JULIO
RAMIREZ; PAUL CROSS; CROSSCORE
MANAGEMENT; SDN INVESTORS; PSILOS GROUP;
ALBERT WAXMAN; J EFFREY KRAUSS; STEPHEN
KRUPA; DAVID EICHLER; DARLENE COLLINS;
WETHERLY CAPITAL GROUP; DAN WEINSTEIN;
VICKY SCHIFF; QUADRANGLE GROUP; ALDUS
EQUITY; SAUL MEYER; MARCELLUS TAYLOR;

MATTHEW O’REILLY; RICHARD ELLMAN;
DEUTSCHE BANK; DIAMOND EDGE CAPITAL;
MARVIN ROSEN; CARLYLE MEZZANINE
PARTNERS; CARLYLE GROUP; DB INVESTMENT
MANAGERS; TOPIARY TRUST; PARK HILL GROUP;
DAN PRENDERGAST; CATTERTON PARTNERS;
BLACKSTONE GROUP; GOLD BRIDGE CAPITAL;
DARIUS ANDERSON; KIRK ANDERSON; ARES
MANAGEMENT; INROADS GROUP; CAMDEN
PARTNERS; HFV; BARRETT WISSMAN; TAG;
AJAX INVESTMENTS; CLAYTON DUBILIER
AND RICE; INTERMEDIA; LEO HINDERY;
WILLIAM R. HOWELL; CABRERA CAPITAL;
MARTIN CABRERA; CRESTLINE INVESTORS;
TREMONT PARTNERS, INC.; TREMONT CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC.; JOHN DOE #1; and JOHN
DOES #3 through #50,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY
John W. Pope, District Judge
Victor R. Marshall & Associates, P.C.
Victor R. Marshall
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellants
Bowles & Crow
B.J. Crow
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Sandia Asset Management

Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk PA
Brian K. Nichols
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellees Darlene Collins, Jeffrey Krauss, Psilos Group, Albert Waxman,
Dan Weinstein, and Stephen Krupa
Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall LLP
Marshall G. Martin
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellees Leo Hindery, Intermedia
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, PA
Kenneth L. Harrigan
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellees Crosscore Management, Paul A. Cross, Jeffrey Krauss, Darlene
Collins, Psilos Group, Ares Management, Albert Waxman, David Eichler,
Stephen Krupa, Crestline Investors, Dan Weinstein, Inroads Group, Wetherly
Capital Group
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk P.A.
John R. Cooney
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Quadrangle Group
Van Amberg, Rogers, Yepa, Abeita & Gomez, LLP
Ronald J. Van Amberg
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellees Darius Anderson, Kirk Anderson, and Gold Bridge Capital

Michael L. Danoff & Associates PC
Michael L. Danoff
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellees Carlyle Group and Carlyle Mezzanine Partners
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk, PA
Paul M. Fish
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellees Tremont Group Holdings, Tremont Capital Management,
Oppenheimer Funds, Tremont Partners
Scheuer Yost & Patterson, PC
Mel E. Yost
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellees Marvin Rosen and Diamond Edge Capital
Montgomery & Andrews, PA
Stephen S. Hamilton
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellees Austin Capital Management GP Corp., Dudley Brown, Berean
Capital, Keycorp, Will Jason Rottinger, David E. Friedman, Riley Brent,
Charles Riley, Austin Capital Management, Victory Capital, Gary Bland,
Davis Hamilton, Juniper Capital, Alfred Jackson, Anthony Correra, and Marc
Correra
Brennan & Sullivan PA
Michael W. Brennan
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellees Park Hill Group, Dan Hevesi, Henry Morris, and Dan Prendergast

Simone, Roberts & Weiss, PA
Stephen M. Simone
Norman F. Weiss
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee David Contarino
Arland & Associates LLC
William J. Arland III
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellees Marcellus Taylor, Saul Meyer, Richard Ellman, Matthew O’Reilly,
and Aldus Equity
French & Associates, PC
Stephen G. French
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Guy Riordan
Butt, Thornton & Baehr, PC
Rodney Schlagel
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee William R. Howell
Silva, Saucedo & Gonzales, PC
Benjamin Silva, Jr.
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee HFV

Law Office of George “Dave” Giddens, P.C.
George Dave Giddens
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellees Catterton Partners, Camden Partners, SDN Investors, Vicky Schiff,
TAG, Ajax Investments, and Barrett Wissman
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.
Andrew G. Schultz
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellees DB Investment Managers, Topiary Trust, Deutsche Bank
Basham & Basham, P.C.
Katherine A. Basham
Martin R. Esquivel
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee Bruce Malott
Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC
Luis E. Robles
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Meyners and Company
Gregg Vance Fallick
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Bruce Malott
Rubin, Katz, Ahern, Herdman & MacGillivray, P.A.
Frank T. Herdman
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee Clayton Dubilier and Rice

Madison & Mroz, PA
Michael J. Dekleva
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Julio Ramirez
Robert Becker & Associates
Robert W. Becker
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Guy Riordan
Keleher & McLeod, P.A.
Sean Olivas
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Martin Cabrera and Cabrera Capital
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
Mark P. Goodman
Amanda Ulrich
Lisa Howley
New York, NY
for Appellee Victory Capital and Clayton Dubilier and Rice
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP
Peter L. Simmons
New York, NY
for Appellees DB Investment Managers, Topiary Trust, and Will Jason Rottinger

OPINION
CASTILLO, Chief Judge.
{1} 	New Mexico’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-9-1 to -14
(2007) (FATA or the Act) was passed in 2007. The next year, Plaintiffs filed a qui
tam action under the Act alleging violations that occurred as early as 2003. Although
these alleged acts predate the effective date of FATA, they fall within the period
provided for in FATA’s retroactivity provision, Section 44-9-12(A) (applying the Act
to violations occurring from 1987 forward). 	Defendants argued that FATA’s
retroactivity provision violates the federal and state Ex Post Facto Clauses and is
therefore unconstitutional. The district court agreed and dismissed that portion of the
complaint containing allegations of acts that occurred before the effective date of
FATA. We granted leave to file an interlocutory appeal, and we now affirm.
I. 	BACKGROUND
{2} 	Before beginning our discussion of the constitutional question, we provide a
short background. This action is linked to a companion lawsuit, State ex rel. Foy v.
Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC, D-101-CV-2008-1895 (Vanderbilt), with similar
allegations from the same plaintiffs, Frank and Suzanne Foy (Plaintiffs) along with
the State of New Mexico (the State). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants—who include
Wall 	Street 	firms 	and 	investment 	advisors, 	as 	well 	as 	high-ranking 	state

2
officials—executed fraudulent schemes that led to the loss of hundreds of millions of
dollars at the expense of the State Investment Council (SIC) and the New Mexico
Educational Retirement Board (ERB). 	Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants
misrepresented their investment products and services and paid kickbacks and bribes
to get business from the SIC and ERB. The complaint alleges that some state officers,
including the heads of the SIC and ERB, conspired with their co-defendants to steer
state investment funds to firms that were willing to pay kickbacks. Some of the acts
are alleged to have occurred as early as 2003, which predates implementation of the
Act but falls within its retroactivity provision.
{3} 	The district court in Vanderbilt zeroed in on the issue of FATA’s retroactivity
provision and ruled that it was an unconstitutional violation of the federal and state
Ex Post Facto clauses. 	The district court in this action eventually adopted the
reasoning of the Vanderbilt court and severed the retroactivity clause while allowing
the rest of the action covering conduct that occurred on July 1, 2007 or later, to
continue prospectively. 	We granted leave for interlocutory appeal to consider the
constitutionality of the retroactivity clause. We also allowed parties, in their briefs,
to raise the question of whether the case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We briefly touch on the question of subject matter jurisdiction and then
proceed with our analysis of the constitutionality of FATA’s retroactivity provision.

3
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Subject Matter Jurisdiction
{4} 	As a preliminary matter, we address the question of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants ask us to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for
two reasons: (1) they say Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies,
and (2) they claim that Plaintiffs are barred from bringing an action against state
officials. See § 44-9-9(B) (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an action . . . against
an elected or appointed state official . . . if the action is based on evidence or
information known to the state agency to which the false claim was made or to the
attorney general when the action was filed.”). The district court tentatively denied
Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under both
arguments, and the court invited the parties to brief the issue and advance their
arguments.
{5} 	We conclude that both arguments would benefit from factual developments and
legal arguments to the court below, and we decline to address the issue of subject
matter jurisdiction at this time. 	Cf. City of Las Cruces v. El Paso Elec. Co.,
1998-NMSC-006, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 640, 954 P.2d 72 (determining that a lower court
“is in the best position to resolve, in the first instance, the facts necessary for a
determination of the constitutionality” of a given statute); Schlieter v. Carlos, 108

4
N.M. 507, 510, 775 P.2d 709, 712 (1989) (concluding that an appellate court “should
exercise its discretion to decide the certified questions only with a full record before
it, so that any decision on the constitutionality of [a statute] would not be based upon
anecdotal and speculative argument”).
B. 	Standard of Review
{6} 	“We review issues of statutory and constitutional interpretation de novo.” State
v. Lucero, 2007-NMSC-041, ¶ 8, 142 N.M. 102, 163 P.3d 489, cert. granted, 2011-
NMCERT-011, 150 N.M. 560, 263 P.3d 902. In doing so, we “give no deference to
[a] district court’s conclusions of law.” Bounds v. State, 2011-NMCA-011, ¶ 33, 149
N.M. 484, 252 P.3d 708 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), certs.
granted, 2011-NMCERT-001, 150 N.M. 560, 263 P.3d 902. Legislative enactments
are presumed valid, and “we must uphold such enactments unless we are satisfied
beyond all reasonable doubt that the Legislature went outside the bounds fixed by the
Constitution in enacting the challenged legislation.” Bounds, 2011-NMCA-011, ¶ 34
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State v. Segotta, 100 N.M. 498,
500, 672 P.2d 1129, 1131 (1983) (noting that “we presume [a] statute to be
constitutional”). 	We are guided by the “fundamental principle that courts will not
declare a legislative act unconstitutional if there is any reasonable basis upon which
it can be upheld.” 	Bounds, 2011-NMCA-011, ¶ 34 (internal quotation marks and

5
citation omitted). “[I]f a statute is susceptible to two constructions, one supporting it
and the other rendering it void, a court should adopt the construction which will
uphold 	its 	constitutionality.” 	Johnson 	v. 	N.M. 	Oil 	Conservation 	Comm’n,
1999-NMSC-021, ¶ 17, 127 N.M. 120, 978 P.2d 327 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
C. 	FATA and the False Claims Act
{7} 	FATA prohibits the acts of knowingly presenting a false claim for payment
from the State, presenting false records to obtain payment from the State, and making
false statements to obtain payment. See § 44-9-3(A). FATA was enacted in 2007 and
tracks closely the longstanding federal False Claims Act (FCA). Compare § 44-9-3,
with 31 U.S.C.A. § 3729 (2011). See also Pamela Bucy et al., States, Statutes, and
Fraud: A Study of Emerging State Efforts to Combat White Collar Crime, 31 Cardozo
L. Rev. 1523, 1535 (2010) (noting that most states’ false-claims statutes were passed
in recent years, spurred by Congress’ “financial incentive for states to pass FCAs that
mirror the federal FCA”). The federal act was signed into law during the height of the
Civil War, in 1863, by President Abraham Lincoln as an effort to protect the Union
cause by combating fraud in military supply contracts. 	See S. Rep. 99-345, at 8
(1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5273. The novelty of the original act
was that it allowed a private individual, rather than the United States government

1Qui tam is short for the British-inspired Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege
quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, or “who pursues this action on our Lord the
King’s behalf as well as his own.” Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States, ex rel.,
Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 768 n.1 (2000).
6
itself, to bring a qui tam1 action on behalf of the government. 	See Vt. Agency of
Natural Res., 529 U.S. at 769. As an incentive to act on behalf of the public good, the
individual who brings the suit under the FCA is eligible to receive as much as thirty
percent of the damages award or settlement. Id. at 769-70.
{8} 	Under FATA, any person who violates the statute is liable for “three times the
amount of damages sustained by the state[.]” Section 44-9-3. A qui tam plaintiff may
recover between ten percent and thirty percent of those proceeds. See § 44-9-7(A).
The qui tam plaintiff is entitled to between fifteen and twenty-five percent of the
proceeds of a successful action or settlement “depending upon the extent to which the
qui tam plaintiff substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action[.]” Section
44-9-7(A)(1). 	The award shall be reduced to ten percent if “the action was based
primarily on disclosures of specific information, not provided by the qui tam
plaintiff,” Section 44-9-7(A)(2); the award to the qui tam plaintiff shall be raised to
between twenty-five and thirty percent “[i]f the state does not proceed with an action
brought by a qui tam plaintiff and the state prevails in the action[.]” Section 44-9-
7(B). A successful qui tam plaintiff also is eligible to recover attorney fees and court

7
expenses, as is the State. Section 44-9-7(D).
{9} 	A unique aspect of New Mexico’s Act is that it applies retroactively, covering
conduct that occurred as far back as July 1, 1987. 	See § 44-9-12(A). 	Defendants
contend that the damages portion of the Act makes it penal in nature and that applying
the statute retroactively would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, giving rise to this
constitutional challenge.
D. 	Ex Post Facto Laws
{10} 	Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited by the United States and New Mexico
Constitutions. 	See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 10, cl. 1; N.M. Const. art. 2, § 19; State v.
Norush, 97 N.M. 660, 661, 642 P.2d 1119, 1120 (Ct. App. 1982). “The Latin phrase
‘ex post facto’ implicates in its literal meaning any law passed ‘after the fact.’ ” State
v. Orduñez, 2012-NMSC-024, ¶ 14, 283 P.3d 282. The Ex Post Facto Clause (the
Clause) is violated when a statute involving retroactivity is passed that “make[s]
criminal a previously innocent act, increase[s] the punishment, or change[s] the proof
necessary to convict the defendant.” 	Id. 	“One of the purposes of the ex post facto
prohibition is to ensure that the accused individual receives fair notice of the crime
and its punishment.” 	State v. Adam M., 1998-NMCA-014, ¶ 8, 124 N.M. 505, 953
P.2d 40.
{11} 	Thus, before a court may allow a statute to be applied retroactively, it must

8
determine “whether doing so would violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post
facto laws.” State v. Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 112, 129 N.M. 63, 2 P.3d 264. A key
inquiry looks at the nature of the punishment at issue because “the constitutional
prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to penal statutes which disadvantage the
offender affected by them.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
prohibition does not apply to penalties that are considered remedial in nature. 	See
Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 145 (Serna, J., dissenting). Accordingly, we evaluate the
type of penalties imposed by FATA.
E. 	Nature of Penalties
{12} 	Plaintiffs argue that FATA is safe from the reach of the Ex Post Facto Clause
because it is a civil statute and because the Clause applies only to criminal statutes.
Noting that the word “civil” is used nineteen times in the statute, Plaintiffs contend
that FATA, as a “purely civil statute,” imposes no penalties and does not run afoul of
the Ex Post Facto Clause. Plaintiffs appear to focus on the wording of the statute
rather than on the nature of the statute as a whole. Our Supreme Court has provided
us with direction: “[I]n New Mexico, the fact that the Legislature has chosen to label
a proceeding ‘civil’ or ‘criminal’ is not dispositive of the true nature of that
proceeding.” Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 46; see State v. Kirby, 2003-NMCA-074,
¶ 29, 133 N.M. 782, 70 P.3d 772 (disavowing the United States Supreme Court’s

9
opinions “that place heavy emphasis on the label attached by the legislative body
enacting the penalty”). Rather, it is the character of the statute itself that decides the
issue. “Generally, this means that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws
applies only to penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them.”
Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
{13} 	To the extent that Plaintiffs rely on cases they contend hold that the Ex Post
Facto Clause applies only to criminal statutes, we are not persuaded. For example,
Plaintiffs claim that the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386
(1798), held that the Clause applies only to criminal statutes. 	Calder was not so
limited; it consisted of three concurring opinions with one opinion concluding that “ex
post facto laws . . . extend to penal statutes” and “to the creation, and, perhaps,
enhancement of crimes, pains and penalties.” 	Id. at 397 (emphasis added). 	The
United States Supreme Court has long re-established the principle that the Ex Post
Facto Clause applies to statutes that are penal rather than to statutes that are
exclusively criminal. See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 96 (1958) (discussing Calder
and concluding that “these provisions apply only to statutes imposing penalties” and
reasoning 	that 	“[i]f 	the 	statute 	imposes 	a 	disability 	for 	the 	purposes 	of
punishment—that is, to reprimand the wrongdoer, to deter others, etc., it has been
considered penal”). Plaintiffs also quote extensively from Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S.

10
134 (1938), to support their contention that courts afford deference to retroactive civil
statutes. The Welch Court’s holding is limited to the proposition that taxation is not
considered a penalty and that retroactive imposition of taxes is constitutionally sound.
See id. at 146, 151.
{14} 	Under New Mexico jurisprudence, Plaintiffs rely on Colbert v. Journal
Publishing Co., 19 N.M. 156, 142 P. 146 (1914), to argue that our Supreme Court held
that an award of punitive damages in a civil case does not constitute punishment for
a crime. 	The question in Colbert was whether a tort plaintiff could be awarded
punitive damages when that tort also constitutes a crime. See id. at 168, 142 P.2d at
150. 	Although the Court concluded “that a wrongful act punishable as an offense
does not preclude exemplary damages therefor in a civil act sounding in tort,” the case
did not involve the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the Court did not address the
appropriateness 	of 	retroactive 	application 	of 	those 	exemplary 	damages. 	Id.
Therefore, Colbert does not provide guidance on the issue before us.
F. 	The Constitutionality of FATA
{15} 	Having established that the Ex Post Facto Clause applies to penal statutes, even
those labeled civil, we now turn to the question of whether retroactive application of
FATA is prohibited. 	In such an inquiry, the threshold question is whether “the
intention of the [L]egislature was to impose punishment.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84,

11
92 (2003). “If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil
and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive
either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil.” 	Id.
(alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). Our Supreme Court has
outlined the analysis:
[T]he court must determine whether the sanction established by the
legislation was sufficiently punitive in its effect that, on balance, the
punitive effects outweigh the remedial effect. Although a civil penalty
may cause a degree of punishment for the defendant, such a subjective
effect cannot override the legislation’s primarily remedial purpose.
City of Albuquerque v. One (1) 1984 White Chevy Ut., 2002-NMSC-014, ¶ 11, 132
N.M. 187, 46 P.3d 94 (citations omitted).
{16} 	We will assume but not decide that the Legislature intended to craft a civil and
nonpunitive statute. 	We thus turn to the second part of the inquiry and determine
whether a statutory scheme like FATA’s is “punitive either in purpose or effect.” To
do so we apply the seven-factor test (Mendoza-Martinez analysis) set forth in State v.
Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 30, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050 (adopting the test
established in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)). These factors
are:
(1) [w]hether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint[,]
(2) whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment[,] (3)
whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter[,] (4) whether its
operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution

12
and deterrence[,] (5) whether the behavior to which it applies is already
a crime[,] (6) whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally
be connected is assignable for it[,] and (7) whether it appears excessive
in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.
Kirby, 2003-NMCA-074, ¶ 28 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation
omitted). We take the seven Mendoza-Martinez factors in turn. Before proceeding,
we note that the Vanderbilt court below tracked its reading of the seven factors with
the analysis in United States ex rel. Sanders v. Allison Engine Co., 667 F. Supp. 2d
747 (S.D. Ohio 2009). Since the court’s decision below and after the briefing in this
appeal, Allison Engine Co. has been overturned by the Sixth Circuit, which reversed
the federal district court’s finding that the treble damages provision is punitive in
nature and found instead that the sanctions are remedial in nature. 	See 2012 WL
5373532, **12-14 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). 	While the Allison Engine Co.
opinion was used as a guide by the Vanderbilt court below, we do not rely on it. We
instead take a broader view of federal case law and place more emphasis on New
Mexico case law.
1. 	Affirmative Disability or Restraint
{17} 	As to the first factor, the civil penalties imposed by FATA do not constitute an
affirmative disability or restraint. We conclude that the monetary damages here do
not “approach[] the infamous punishment of imprisonment” or “carry the stigma of
a criminal conviction.” Kirby, 2003-NMCA-074, ¶ 30 (finding that the Securities Act

13
is more remedial than punitive under the first factor) (alteration in original) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). This factor falls in favor of finding FATA to
be remedial in nature.
2. 	Historically Regarded as Punishment
{18} 	While we noted in Kirby that “monetary assessments are traditionally a form
of civil remedy,” id. ¶ 31 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), in the case
before us, we are dealing with treble damages, a unique form of monetary penalty.
Our appellate courts have not squarely decided the issue of whether treble damages
are historically regarded as punishment and we therefore turn to federal law for
guidance.
{19} 	“The very idea of treble damages reveals an intent to punish past, and to deter
future, unlawful conduct, not to ameliorate the liability of wrongdoers.” Texas Indus.,
Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 639 (1981); see United States ex rel.
Baker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1112 (D.N.M. 2010) (finding
that FCA sanctions, including treble damages, “have historically been regarded, at
least in part, as punitive”); Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Spencer Handbags Corp., 765 F.2d
966, 970-72 (2d Cir.1985) (stating that the punitive nature of the treble damages
provision in the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 could raise ex post facto
concerns). 	By contrast, in areas outside the realm of the FCA, the United States

14
Supreme Court has found some treble damages provisions to be remedial in nature.
See, e.g., PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401, 406 (2003) (finding the
treble damages in the RICO racketeering statute to be remedial); Shearson/Am.
Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 240-41 (1987) (same); Brunswick Corp. v.
Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 485 (1977) (describing Section 4 of the
Clayton Act regulating antitrust behavior to be “in essence a remedial provision”).
However, even in the antitrust realm, where treble damages awards have been a
fixture for more than a century, the Court has stated that “treble damages were
designed in part to punish past violations of the antitrust laws” and “serve as a means
of deterring antitrust violations and of compensating victims.” Am. Soc’y of Mech.
Eng’rs, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556, 575-76 (1982) (emphasis added).
Even a nearly seventy-year-old case relied on by Plaintiffs, United States ex rel.
Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 550 (1943), which found the old double damages
provision of the FCA to be a form of restitution to make the government whole,
suggested that a treble damages award might cross over into the nature of punitive
damages.
{20} 	We 	thus 	focus 	solely 	on 	treble 	damages 	provisions 	under 	the 	FCA.
Notwithstanding case law to the contrary, Plaintiffs rely on the United States Supreme
Court’s recent discussion of treble damages, Cook County, Illinois v. United States ex

15
rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (2003), for the proposition that monetary damages such
as those found in the FCA “have historically and traditionally been treated as civil
remedies.” It is notable that Chandler, while an FCA case, dealt with neither the Ex
Post Facto Clause nor the idea of double jeopardy; instead, its sole question was
whether municipalities qualified as “persons” subject to qui tam actions under the act.
Id. at 122. 	Thus, the Court was not concerned, as we are here, with weighing the
punitive aspects of the FCA against its remedial aspects; rather, the Chandler Court
was focused on whether the statute had any remedial aspects whatsoever, which would
justify upholding the longstanding presumption that municipalities were subject to the
FCA despite amendments made by Congress in 1986. Id. at 133. The Chandler Court
did not disavow its earlier opinion in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, which
characterized the FCA as punitive; the Court merely noted that “it is important to
realize that treble damages have a compensatory side, serving remedial purposes in
addition to punitive objectives.” Chandler, 538 U.S. at 130 (emphasis added). The
Court stated that “the treble damages ceiling has a remedial place under this statute”
and concluded that “the force of th[e] punitive nature in arguing against municipal
liability is not as robust as if it were a pure penalty in all cases.” Id. at 131-32. Thus,
Chandler did not balance the punitive and remedial qualities of the FCA’s treble
damages provision.

16
{21} 	Although not binding on this Court, we find persuasive the federal courts that
have concluded that the treble damages provision of the FCA is sufficiently punitive
so as to bar retroactive application of its damages. See, e.g., Cmty. Health Sys., Inc.,
709 F. Supp. 2d at 1110; United States ex rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff, 548 F.3d 931, 956
n.24 (10th Cir. 2008); United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield,
472 F.3d 702, 734 (10th Cir. 2006) (Hartz, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part)
(“The Act is punitive in two respects. The availability of treble damages, even though
it has a compensatory side, also has a punitive character[.] 	In addition, [Section]
3729(a)(7) of the Act provides for a penalty of $5,000 to $10,000 regardless of actual
damages.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Massachusetts v.
Schering-Plough Corp., 779 F. Supp. 2d 224, 233 (D. Mass. 2011) (same); United
States v. Hawley, 812 F. Supp. 2d 949, 958-59 (N.D. Iowa 2011). 	But see United
States ex rel. Drake v. NSI, Inc., 736 F. Supp. 2d 489, 500 (D. Conn. 2010) (stating
that the FCA’s sanctions have “been primarily viewed as civil” over the years).
{22} 	New Mexico’s approach to multiplied damages also finds such sanctions to be
punitive in nature, albeit under different statutes and in different contexts. See Hale
v. Basin Motor Co., 110 N.M. 314, 320, 795 P.2d 1006, 1012 (1990) (stating that the
“[m]ultiplication of damages pursuant to statutory authority [such as the Unfair
Practices Act] is a form of punitive damages” and barring the award of both statutory

17
treble damages and common law punitive damages because both are punitive in
nature); Blake v. Hoover Motor Co., 28 N.M. 371, 374, 212 P. 738, 739 (1923)
(dismissing as “harsh” the treble damages provision of the ancient statute of
Gloucester punishing a tenant for waste); Chavarria v. Fleetwood Retail Corp.,
2005-NMCA-082, ¶ 45, 137 N.M. 783, 115 P.3d 799 (expressing “difficulty
discerning any appreciable difference in the levels of proof” between a treble damages
award under the Unfair Practices Act and common law punitive damages), rev’d in
part on other grounds by 2006-NMSC-046, 140 N.M. 478, 143 P.3d 717; McLelland
v. United Wisconsin Life Ins. Co., 1999-NMCA-055, ¶¶ 10, 25, 127 N.M. 303, 980
P.2d 86 (citing Hale for the proposition that the trebling of a damages award “ordered
by the court is a form of punitive damages” and taking note of the argument from one
party that “the only punitive damages that could be awarded under the [Unfair
Practices Act] were the treble damages that could be awarded by the court”); Roberts
v. Am. Warranty Corp., 514 A.2d 1132, 1135 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986) (concluding that
“the provision for treble damages is a form of punitive damages”).
{23} 	Based on federal court analysis of the FCA and our case law involving statutes
with multiplied damage provisions, we conclude that a treble damages award is mostly
punitive in nature. Accordingly, this factor favors a determination that FATA’s treble
damages provision is penal in nature.

18
3. 	Finding of Scienter Required
{24} 	FATA requires a finding of scienter. 	Under the statute, a person may not:
“knowingly present, or cause to be presented . . . a false or fraudulent claim for
payment or approval”; “knowingly make or use . . . a false, misleading or fraudulent
record or statement”; “knowingly buy . . . public property from any person that may
not lawfully sell or pledge the property”; 	“knowingly make or use . . . a false,
misleading or fraudulent record or statement to conceal, avoid or decrease an
obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state”; or “conspire to defraud
the state” or “conspire to make . . . a false, misleading or fraudulent record.” Section
44-9-3(A) (emphasis added). Accordingly, FATA sanctions apply only on a finding
of scienter, and this factor falls in favor of finding FATA to be penal in nature.
4. 	Promote the Traditional Aims of Punishment
{25} 	Punishment is commonly assumed to include the twin components of deterrence
and retribution. In New Mexico, “[d]eterrence is a way of using the punishment of
a defendant as an example to others who might be tempted to commit the same crime.
It is an announcement to the world of the consequences for those who are caught
committing the prohibited act.” 	Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 85. A deterrent “must
amount to more than recompense or restitution.” 	Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “If it is clear that the sanction greatly exceeds the quantum of harm,

19
then it is punitive. Id. ¶ 89.
{26} 	As noted above, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that treble
damages represent “an intent to punish past, and to deter future, unlawful conduct.”
Texas Indus., Inc., 451 U.S. at 639 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); see Am. Soc’y of Mech. Eng’rs, Inc., 456 U.S. at 575 (observing that
treble damages were “designed in part to punish past violations of the antitrust law”
and “also designed to deter future antitrust violations” (emphasis added)); Perma Life
Mufflers, Inc. v. Int’l Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 139 (1968) (stating that “the purposes
of the antitrust laws are best served by insuring that the private action will be an
ever-present threat to deter anyone contemplating business behavior in violation of
the antitrust laws” (emphasis added)), overruled on other grounds by Copperweld
Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984).
{27} 	Those declarations, however, do not end the inquiry because “the fact that the
regulatory scheme has some incidental deterrent effect does not render the sanction
punishment.” State ex rel. Schwartz v. Kennedy, 120 N.M. 619, 633, 904 P.2d 1044,
1058 (1995). “A monetary sanction . . . must be described as having a deterrent or
retributive purpose if it is not designed to compensate the government for its losses.”
Id. at 634, 904 P.2d at 1059 (emphasis omitted). More recently, our Supreme Court
again cautioned that civil damages awards, in order to be considered remedial, must

20
be in proportion to the losses suffered. See Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 87 (“A statute
that attempted to, for example, recompense the government for its investigation and
prosecution costs, would devise a fine that reasonably approximated the dollar amount
of the government’s efforts, based upon past average expenditures.”).
{28} 	We now look to the damages available to Plaintiffs under FATA to see if the
sanctions exceed the government’s losses and regulatory costs. The statute provides:
A person who violates Subsection A of this section shall be liable for:
(1) three times the amount of damages sustained by the state
because of the violation;
(2) a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000)
and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation;
(3) the costs of a civil action brought to recover damages or
penalties; and
(4) reasonable attorney fees, including the fees of the attorney
general or state agency counsel.
Section 44-9-3(C). Before even considering the impact and disbursement of treble
damages, we note that a successful plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and the
costs of bringing a qui tam action, both of which would fall under the rubric of
compensating for government losses. However, we cannot say the same for the treble
damages provision or the “civil penalty” of up to $10,000 per violation. Such obvious
penalties, in the absence of compensatory purposes, exhibit the qualities of deterrence

21
and retribution intended to punish the offender.
{29} 	As to the treble damages award, one-third goes toward compensating the
government for its loss. Almost, but not all of, another third (up to thirty percent)
could go toward rewarding the qui tam plaintiff. The destination of the final third
proves more troublesome. The United States Supreme Court has suggested that, with
respect to the FCA, the final third could represent compensatory damages and
prejudgment interest on the principal amount. 	See Chandler, 538 U.S. at 131. We
find several problems with that line of reasoning as applied to the facts before us: (1)
it is an amorphous calculation that cannot be established in general for all cases; (2)
FATA separately allows for reimbursement of all costs incurred in bringing an action,
including attorney fees; (3) FATA does not allow damages for prejudgment interest;
(4) even if the final third were purely compensatory in nature, that would leave the
additional fines of up to $10,000 per violation unaccounted for.
{30} 	In 	sum, 	because 	FATA’s 	wide-ranging 	sanctions 	go 	beyond 	merely
compensating the government for its losses and costs of recoupment, a portion of the
potential damages award has a deterrent or retributive purpose. Kennedy, 120 N.M.
at 633-34, 904 P.2d at 1058-59. This factor, then, falls in favor of finding FATA to
be punitive in nature.
5. 	Behavior Already a Crime

22
{31} 	Our previous cases involving double jeopardy claims suggest that when the
behavior being punished is already a crime it points in favor of finding the statute to
be 	punitive 	in 	nature 	under 	the 	Mendoza-Martinez 	test. 	See 	Druktenis,
2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 32; Kirby, 2003-NMCA-074, ¶ 35. Here, the bringing of a qui
tam civil action does not preclude the state from pursuing a criminal complaint
alleging fraud based on the same set of facts. See §§ 44-9-6(G), (H); -7(C)(2); -9(C);
-12(B). Indeed, FATA’s remedies “are not exclusive and shall be in addition to any
other remedies provided for in any other law.” Section 44-9-14. As Plaintiff admits,
FATA prohibits the same actions that give rise to not only the torts of fraud and
reckless misrepresentation but also criminal penalties, such as criminal fraud, NMSA
1978, § 30-16-6 (2006), and securities fraud, NMSA 1978, § 58-13C-508 (2009).
{32} 	This factor falls in favor of finding FATA to be punitive in nature.
6. 	Alternative Purpose
{33} 	A statute may be considered more remedial than punitive when “[t]he civil
penalty is one of several tools of regulatory and administrative enforcement” and “the
legislative purpose . . . was that the penalty constitute an integral part of an overall
remedial regulatory and administrative scheme to protect the public.” Kirby, 2003-
NMCA-074, ¶ 26. 	In the area of double jeopardy, a penalty does not create
constitutional concerns “so long as the sanction reasonably serves regulatory goals

23
adopted in the public interest.” 	Kennedy, 120 N.M. at 631, 904 P.2d at 1056; see
Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 89 (finding a punitive purpose to a sanction when it “is
unrelated to the cost of ameliorating the harm”); Denison v. Tocker, 55 N.M. 184, 187,
229 P.2d 285, 286 (1951) (finding the federal Housing and Rent Act to represent a
regulatory scheme, making it “clear that [C]ongress thereby intended to create a
remedy rather than impose a penalty” via a treble damages sanction). Thus, we look
for multiple “tools” of enforcement and the presence of a comprehensive regulatory
scheme in FATA that would deem it remedial in nature.
{34} 	In Kirby, we found an alternative, remedial purpose related to the Securities
Act’s civil penalty, which was given “added substance” by the fact that funds from the
civil penalty were earmarked for public education and training on securities matters.
2003-NMCA-074, ¶ 36. In Kirby, the purpose of the Securities Act was “to regulate”
the financial industry, and we concluded that “[t]he civil penalty, together with the use
of penalty funds for education and training, serve that purpose.” 	Id. 	Similarly, in
State v. Block, 2011-NMCA-101, ¶¶ 2, 33-34, 150 N.M. 598, 263 P.3d 940, we found
the Voter Action Act, as part of “our comprehensive Election Code,” to be “a
regulatory and administrative scheme” that was “directed at establishing a public
campaign financing system that is subject to considerable oversight by the office of
the secretary of state.” The statute analyzed in Block provided for the certification of

24
candidates, “management of and disbursements from the public election fund,” and
the oversight of “candidate expenditures and reporting requirements.” 	Id. ¶ 33.
Similarly, the Securities Act in Kirby, since recodified as the New Mexico Uniform
Securities Act, spans seven sections and includes a broad range of regulatory
provisions, 	including 	registration 	requirements, 	penalties 	for 	fraud 	and 	other
liabilities, and administrative enforcement procedures. See NMSA 1978, §§ 58-13C-
101 to -701 (2009). By contrast, FATA is just one section under the umbrella heading
of “Miscellaneous Civil Law Matters.” We do not find in FATA, as we did in Kirby
or Block, “a comprehensive regulatory and administrative legislative scheme.” Kirby,
2003-NMCA-074, ¶ 37. 	In addition, FATA directs that proceeds from damage
awards, fines and penalties are not to be earmarked for specific purposes relating to
false claims, but rather are to be distributed as follows:
(1) 	proceeds in the amount of the false claim paid and
attorney fees and costs shall be returned to the fund or funds from which
the money, property or services came;
(2) 	civil penalties shall be deposited in the current school
fund pursuant to Article 12, Section 4 of the constitution of New
Mexico; and
(3) all remaining proceeds shall be deposited as follows:
(a) one-half into a fund for the use of the attorney
general in furtherance of the obligations imposed upon that office by
[FATA] [44-9-1]; and

25
(b) one-half into the general fund.
Section 44-9-7(E). Thus, under FATA, a significant portion of the proceeds after a
successful prosecution of a claim go to either the school fund or the general fund
rather than to the furtherance of a regulatory scheme. Cf. Dep’t of Revenue of Mont.
v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 777 (1994) (noting that “a so-called civil ‘penalty’ may
be remedial in character if it merely reimburses the government for its actual costs
arising from the defendant’s criminal conduct”).
{35} 	Although some of FATA sanctions clearly have an alternative remedial
purpose, we conclude that those remedial aspects fall short of the comprehensive
regulatory scheme found in the Securities Act in Kirby and the Voters Action Act in
Block. 	Giving Plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, however, a limited, literal
interpretation of this factor would tilt it in favor of finding FATA to be remedial in
nature; there is some remedial purpose that is rationally related to the statute’s
regulatory function. 	However, the weakness of this factor affords it little weight,
especially as we proceed to the next factor.
7. 	Whether the Punishment Is Excessive
{36} 	The United States Supreme Court cautions that the analysis under this factor “is
not an exercise in determining whether the [L]egislature has made the best choice

26
possible to address the problem it seeks to remedy. 	The question is whether the
regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective.” Smith,
538 U.S. at 105.
{37} 	We do not look at the actual sanctions at stake in a specific case but rather at
the purposes furthered under the statute in question. See Kennedy, 120 N.M. at 631,
904 P.2d at 1056 (“In order to ascertain whether these sanctions are punitive[,] we
must look at the purposes that the sanctions actually serve. 	We make this
determination by evaluating the government’s purpose in enacting the legislation,
rather than evaluating the effect of the sanction on the defendant.” (citation omitted)).
{38} 	Turning to FATA, as noted in the previous section, the remedial aspects of the
Act are less significant than those aspects in other comprehensive regulatory schemes
and, therefore, a lower bar exists for a punishment to be considered excessive in
relation to any alternative remedial purpose. 	In previous cases revolving around
comprehensive regulatory schemes, the sanctions were found to have a close and
substantial relationship to remedial purposes. 	See, e.g., One (1) 1984 White Chevy
Ut., 2002-NMSC-014, ¶ 16 (finding a “clear nexus between” the vehicles seized by
the state and the crime of driving while intoxicated); Kennedy, 120 N.M. at 634, 904
P.2d at 1059 (finding the deterrent (i.e. punitive) aspects of revoking a driver’s license
after a conviction of driving while intoxicated to be “incidental to the government’s

27
purpose of protecting the public from licensees who are incompetent, dishonest, or
otherwise dangerous”); Block, 2011-NMCA-101, ¶ 34 (“It is . . . apparent that the Act,
as a whole, is directed to a remedial purpose.”). In the case before us, we conclude
that one-third of the treble damages award and the fines of up to $10,000 do not have
a clear nexus to any remedial purpose under FATA. 	This is especially true
considering that a significant portion of the proceeds are not earmarked for a specific
remedial purpose, but rather are to be deposited in the State’s education fund or
general fund. As a result, because a substantial portion of a given damages award
serves no remedial purpose, it could be said that “the sanction greatly exceeds the
quantum of harm.” Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, ¶ 89. Indeed, with litigation costs and
attorney fees also available to a plaintiff, the sanction of up to $10,000 per violation
plus a significant portion of the treble damages equivalent to the actual harm caused
shows that the penalties under FATA, unlike those in One (1) 1984 White Chevy Ut.
and Kennedy, outstrip any civil, remedial purpose of the statute, such that “its scope
notably exceeds this purpose.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 116 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). We
cannot say that FATA’s sanctions provisions entail “an overall remedial regulatory
and administrative scheme to protect the public.” Kirby, 2003-NMCA-074, ¶ 26. On
the contrary, because the treble damages provision and per-violation penalties of up
to $10,000 create “a disproportionality between the potential liability of a defendant

28
and the harm to the government[,]” this factor weighs in favor of finding that the
treble damages sanctions are punitive in nature and effect. NSI, Inc., 736 F. Supp. 2d
at 501.
{39} 	In sum, we find this factor falls in favor of finding FATA to be penal in nature.
8. 	Summation of the Seven Factors
{40} 	We conclude that five of the seven factors show FATA to be punitive in nature.
Therefore, “the legislation [is] sufficiently punitive in its effect that, on balance, the
punitive 	effects 	outweigh 	the 	remedial 	effect.” 	One 	(1) 	White 	Chevy 	Ut.,
2002-NMSC-014, ¶ 11. The treble damages provision has historically been regarded
as punishment; a finding of scienter is an element of the violation; the damages
involved promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence; the
behavior being sanctioned is already considered a crime; and the punishment is
excessive when compared with its alternative regulatory or remedial purpose.
G. 	New Cause of Action
{41} 	Plaintiffs’ final argument is that the underlying purpose of the Ex Post Facto
Clause is to preclude the Legislature from declaring to be unlawful acts that were
lawful at the time they were committed. Plaintiffs argue that FATA is not the type of
legislation targeted by the Ex Post Facto Clause because FATA does not create a new
cause of action but simply incorporates the torts of fraud and misrepresentation, which

29
have long been actionable at common law and under various New Mexico statutes.
They contend that Defendants cannot reasonably argue that their actions were lawful
at the time they took place.
{42} 	In considering whether a statute may be implemented retroactively, the court
must ask “whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events
completed before its enactment.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269-70. The United States
Supreme Court in Hughes Aircraft Co., 520 U.S. at 947-48, rejected the premise that
a new statute which allows a qui tam plaintiff to pursue already-prohibited behavior
does not constitute a new cause of action. The Court held that an amendment to the
jurisdictional provision of the FCA permitting qui tam suits did create a new cause of
action and could not be applied retroactively. Id. at 948-49. The court stated: “The
extension of an FCA cause of action to private parties in circumstances where the
action was previously foreclosed is not insignificant.” Id. at 949. Qui tam plaintiffs
“are motivated primarily by prospects of monetary reward rather than the public
good” and “are thus less likely than is the [g]overnment to forgo an action,” and “[i]n
permitting actions by an expanded universe of plaintiffs with different incentives, the
1986 amendment essentially creates a new cause of action.” Id. at 949-50.
{43} 	We have the same set of circumstances before us as the Court did in Hughes,
and we adopt the same logic. We therefore conclude that FATA’s qui tam component

30
creates a new cause of action and thus is subject to the retroactivity prohibitions of the
Ex Post Facto Clause.
H. 	Severability
{44} 	Plaintiffs suggest that, even if we conclude that FATA violates the Ex Post
Facto Clause, we rewrite the treble damages provision to a more constitutionally
favorable double damages provision. We decline to do so for two reasons, and we
instead find the retroactivity clause severable.
{45} 	We show deference to the Legislature when it comes to altering the language
of a statute. See State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 30, 143 N.M. 7, 172 P.3d 144
(“It is a fundamental principle that we cannot rewrite or add language to a statute in
order to make it constitutional. 	Thus, the question of how to ultimately fix the
constitutional problem . . . lies with the Legislature.” (citation omitted)), superseded
by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Consaul, 2012 WL 868811 (Ct. App.
2012) (unpublished opinion). Our courts have long held “that the fixing of penalties
is a legislative function and what constitutes an adequate punishment is a matter for
legislative judgment.” McCutcheon v. Cox, 71 N.M. 274, 277-78, 377 P.2d 683, 686
(1962). 	Thus we “avoid a type of judicial surgery that inevitably would remove
provisions that were central to the original mechanisms” of the statute. Cordova v.
World Fin. Corp., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 40, 146 N.M. 256, 208 P.3d 901.

31
{46} 	The first reason for not rewriting the treble damages section of FATA, as noted
throughout Section E above, is that it is not merely the treble damages award that
presents a problem with applying the statute retrospectively; the fines and penalties
of up to $10,000 per violation of the Act also have a punitive aspect to them.
Reducing the damage award from threefold to double the amount in question still
would not make the total damage award compensatory and remedial in nature.
{47} 	Second, rewriting the treble damages section of FATA would change a key
characteristic of the statute. FATA offers an incentive for violators to cooperate with
the State by allowing the State to reduce the treble damages award to double damages.
See Section 44-9-3(D). Altering the statute to change the maximum award from treble
damages to double damages would undermine that incentive built into the Act.
{48} 	We now look to whether the retroactivity provision may be severed from the
statute to preserve its constitutionality. While it is black-letter law that we are loath
to rewrite a statute,
it is equally fundamental “that a part of a law may be invalid and the
remainder valid, where the invalid part may be separated from the other
portions, without impairing the force and effect of the remaining parts,
and if the legislative purpose as expressed in the valid portion can be
given force and effect, without the invalid part, and, when considering
the entire act it cannot be said that the legislature would not have passed
the remaining part if it had known that the objectionable part was
invalid.”
Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 30 (quoting Bradbury & Stamm Constr. Co. v. Bureau

32
of Revenue, 70 N.M. 226, 230-31, 372 P.2d 808, 811 (1962)).
{49} 	FATA contains a severability clause that allows the remainder of the statute to
remain in effect if any part of the law is invalidated. See 2007 N.M. Laws, Ch. 40, §
15. The retroactivity portion of FATA reads:
A civil action pursuant to [FATA] may be brought at any time. A civil
action pursuant to [FATA] may be brought for conduct that occurred
prior to the effective date of that act, but not for conduct that occurred
prior to July 1, 1987.
Section 44-9-12(A).
{50} 	Allowing FATA to be applied prospectively but eliminating the sentence that
permits retroactive application would not “impair[] the force and effect of the
remaining parts” of the statute. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 30 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). All other aspects of FATA, including the treble damages
provision, could be applied to actions that occurred after July 1, 2007, and the entirety
of the remaining portions of the Act could still “be given force and effect” in full. Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 	Finally, the Legislature gave no
indication that retroactive application of the Act was such an indispensable part of
FATA that legislators would have shelved the entire action had retroactivity not been
an option. See Prot. & Advocacy Sys. v. City of Albuquerque, 2008-NMCA-149, ¶ 73,
145 N.M. 156, 195 P.3d 1 (stating that “a severability clause raises a presumption that
the legislating body would have enacted the rest of the ordinance without the void

33
section” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
{51} 	We therefore conclude that the retroactivity provision of FATA may be severed
from FATA, which shall otherwise remain in full force and effect as it is applied
prospectively.
III. 	CONCLUSION
{52} 	For the foregoing reasons we affirm the district court’s legal conclusion that
retroactive application of FATA is unconstitutional and the court’s decision to sever
the retroactive aspects from the statute, and we remand for further proceedings
consistent with this Opinion. 	As noted above, as to the question of subject matter
jurisdiction, we find the development of the record inadequate at this point for
appellate review.
{53} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:

CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge