May 20, 2019- Christine Nackers v. John Fraser, No. A-1-CA-37312

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/20/2019 8:38 AM

yy

—

Mark
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

r fi
oe

Reynolds

CHRISTINE NACKERS and
WILLIAM NACKERS

ed 9

Plaintiffs-A ppellees,

v. No. A-1-CA-37312

I JOHN RANDALL FRASER and
CINDY TODD FRASER,

+___Defendants-Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOS ALAMOS COUNTY

13

for Appellees

14
15

Hans Voss
Santa Fe, NM

16

for Appellants

VARGAS, Judge.

i} Defendants appeal from several district court orders. This Court’s notice of

proposed disposition proposed to summarily affirm, in part, because the issues raised

on appeal were moot. Defendants’ memorandum in opposition to the proposed

\o

—
Oo

11

12

—"
eS)

14

15

—
oN

17

18

a"
\o

disposition argues that this Court should address the issues based on recognized
exceptions to mootness. [MIO 2] Unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments, we affirm.
23 “This Court may review moot cases that present issues of (1) substantial public
interest or (2) which are capable of repetition yet evading review.” Cobb v. State
Canvassing Bad., 2006-NMSC-034, q 14, 140 N.M. 77, 140 P.3d 498; State ex rel.

Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¢ 14, 141 N.M.

299, 154 P.3d 674 (“An appellate court can review moot cases which present issues

of substantial public interest or which are capable of repetition yet evade review.”).

Our review of moot cases that raise an issue either of substantial public interest or

{ 14 (noting that appellate courts “may review moot cases” that fall within at least one

of the two exceptions).

Aa tn tha fire
£21090 bY UL LID

=a
Ge
fovir)

actions by an adjoining property owner are, or are not, adequate to support a district

court’s exercise of injunctive authority against that adjoining property owner is an

issue implicates one’s freedom to enjoy and control their private property. [MIO 2]

Defendants also contend that the appropriate manner by which to bring an objection

—

&

~~

Ke)

——
c>

11

12

—
WW

14

15

—"
ON

17

18

—
\O

interest. [MIO 3] We disa agree. “A case presents an issue of substantial public interest |
if it involves a constitutional question or affects a fundamental right such as voting.”

Republican Party of N.M. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2012-NMSC-026, { 10,

283 P.3d 85

eo

53

to the level of substantial public interest.

4 Defendants further assert that errors in issuing a preliminary injunction and

[MIO 3-4] Defendants analogize to Gunaji v. Macias, where the Supreme Court

found that human error in the election process was capable of repetition yet evades

a1 tha tarm

S74 > $4 han WA cal
OOCaUSS Wie terms

ravi1a
LVViIvvv

of offic
Viv

on appeal. 2001-NMSC-028, ¢ 10, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008. We are not}

persuaded this case supports Defendants’ contention that the propriety of the district

point to any unique or unusual rulings outside the scope of the rules governing such
objections that compel us to conclude that appellate review is necessary. See Rule 1-
030(C), (D) NMRA (providing fe
and limitations to examination during a deposition).

{5} Astothe issuance of the injunction, Defendants contend that after an individual

has been enjoined for many months or years, the district court can dissol

—

~~]

\o

—"
i)

11

12

—"
Ww

14

15

—
ON

17

18

—
YO

endering the issue moot for purpose of review at the appellate level. [Id.]
Defendants assert that given the district court’s broad authority, combined with the
numerous actions for injunctions, the kind of error claimed here is capable of
repetition yet evades review. [MIO 3-4] We disagree. The very nature of a
preliminary injunction in this context is such that they are often not subject to}
appellate review. A temporary injunction is routinely issued once a factual basis is
led liminary injunction t

decide whether the injunction should remain in force, or be dissolved. See Rule

1-066(B)(2) NMRA (providing that following the issuance of a temporary restraining

ard er
VLUVL

=
*
+

injunction, or if the movant chooses not to, “the court shall dissolve the temporary

restraining order”). Notably, it is Defendants themselves who moved to dismiss the

711 P.2d 915 (“One ought not be heard to complain because the very relief he

requested was granted.”).

6 | Moreover, there is no question as to whether the district court had the authority
to issue the injunction, provided there was a factual basis to do so. Thus, there is no
overriding question concerning the district court’s authority that is common to a

adencee an Sc shit a5 a pa endl /D:,. ~ AAT
future parties. Cf Leonard v. Payday Prof'l/Bio-Cal Comp.,

—

—~

Ks)

—
oS

11

12

—
eS)

14

15

—"
cN

17

18

—"
XO

Iq 10, 12, 143 N.M. 637, 179 P.3d 1245 (recognizing that an issue

is capable of repetition while evading review so long as the issue of whether a

Workers’ Compensation Judge has the authority to issue injunctions requiring an

employer’s insurer to pay medical costs remains open). We a

re not persuaded that any

alleged error by the district court in issuing the injunction, based on the specific facts

pled, is an issue capable of repetition yet evading review.

i; Astothe collateral consequences of the injunction, Defendants asse

ey til v i ys - wad Ay MS. - a9 * - oh Ae FAs 4 a
district court’s injunction against Mr. Fraser, in particular, placed him under a cloud
of doubt with his employer, Los Alamos National Laboratory, that continues today

ayvan a f=)
wVNLlL ALLY

collateral consequences are particularly significant because none of the allegations

against Mr. Fraser were ever resolved through fact finding that resulted in a final

Mr. Fraser, his security clearance was deactivated, which has since been restored, and

his Human Reliability Program Certification, which was terminated, continues to be

wn
—
o)
=
a
<
oO
ot
&
ray
re)
(o)
—
—

ascta TRAT
Heiits. [ivi
consequences exception to mootness is generally applied in the criminal context. See

State v. Sergio B., 2002-NMCA-070, J 10, 132 N.M. 375, 48 P.3d 764 (“Appellate

s,

—

~~

\o

—
i)

\J

sentence increases for subsequent offenses, limitations on eligibility for certain types

of employment, and voting restrictions.”). Injunctions arising from the civil rules of

any
y=
=a
oO
—
t
a)
N
ON
=
QO
}
i}
ie)
=
a.
(@>)
co
Ss
pay]
>
o
QO
}
oO.
—
©
oO
=
2.

procedure are not punitive in nature. Se

are we ky

consequences exception to mootness is inapplicable here; Defendants cite no

authority to persuade us otherwise. [MIO 4-5] See Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co.,2014-

AC A-031_9 98 .39
Vali —

> Il Oo, va

0 P.3d 482 (“Where

. .
arty cites no authority ta ainnort an
¥¥ biIwWsw witwyw VT Wik tv wv Vv.

a pat ty

argument, we may assume no such authority exists.”).

{83 For all of these reasons, and those stated in our notice of proposed disposition,

{9} IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ly. ct V7 ata

JULIE J. VARGAS, Ju