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

The Plaintiffs alleged that the New Mexico Lottery prematurely removed scratch-off games from the market while substantial cash prizes were still available, claiming this practice constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA). The Lottery, a governmental instrumentality, was established to provide entertainment and raise funds for tuition through the New Mexico Lottery Act (NMLA) (paras 2-3, 5).

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims under the UPA, finding that the Lottery was not a "person" under the UPA. The court also denied the Lottery's motion for attorney fees, concluding that the Plaintiffs' claims were not groundless or frivolous (paras 1, 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the Lottery should be considered a "person" under the UPA because it operates in a corporate-like manner, citing its business enterprise structure, self-sustaining funding, and private-sector management approach. They relied on statutory provisions and an unpublished federal decision to support their claim (paras 2, 5-6).
• Defendant-Appellee (New Mexico Lottery): Contended that the UPA does not apply to the Lottery because it is a governmental instrumentality, not a "person" as defined by the UPA. The Lottery also argued that the Plaintiffs' claims were groundless and sought attorney fees, asserting that the Plaintiffs ignored established legal principles and failed to conduct adequate research (paras 3, 12, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico Lottery qualifies as a "person" under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA) (para 1).
• Whether the Plaintiffs' claims were groundless, warranting an award of attorney fees to the Lottery (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' UPA claims, holding that the Lottery is not a "person" under the UPA (para 19).
• The Court of Appeals also affirmed the denial of the Lottery's motion for attorney fees, finding that the Plaintiffs' claims were not groundless (para 19).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Fry CJ and Sutin J. concurring):

• The Court interpreted the UPA's definition of "person" and concluded that it does not include governmental instrumentalities like the Lottery. The Legislature explicitly defined the Lottery as a "public body, politic and corporate," and its purpose is public, not commercial. The Lottery's corporate-like attributes do not transform it into a corporation or company (paras 7-11).
• The Court emphasized that the Legislature did not include governmental entities in the UPA's definition of "person," and when the Legislature intends to include such entities, it does so explicitly in other statutes (para 12).
• The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' reliance on the unpublished federal decision, Lucero v. N.M. Lottery, as it addressed a different legal issue and did not establish the Lottery as a corporate entity (para 13).
• Regarding attorney fees, the Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims were not groundless because they presented a plausible argument for extending or modifying existing law. The Court noted that the issue of whether the Lottery is a "person" under the UPA was not entirely clear, and the Plaintiffs' arguments were made in good faith (paras 16-18).