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 case arose from the adoption of the 1995 Uptown Sector Plan (USP) by the Albuquerque City Council, which downzoned property leased by Albuquerque Commons Partnership (ACP). ACP had previously submitted a site plan under the 1981 USP, but the City deferred its consideration and later adopted the 1995 USP, which imposed stricter zoning restrictions. ACP alleged that the adoption of the 1995 USP violated its due process rights and constituted an unconstitutional taking of its property (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Held that the 1995 USP was enacted contrary to law as applied to ACP and ordered the City to consider ACP’s site plan under the 1981 USP. The City rejected the site plan, and the case proceeded to trial, where the jury found for ACP on due process and takings claims. The takings verdict was dismissed under the doctrine of election of remedies (paras 3-4).
• Albuquerque Commons P’ship v. City Council, 2006-NMCA-143: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the adoption of the 1995 USP was a legislative act, ACP was not entitled to quasi-judicial process, and the property was not downzoned (para 4).
• Albuquerque Commons P’ship v. City Council, 2008-NMSC-025: The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that ACP’s property was downzoned, the City was required to provide quasi-judicial process, and the 1995 USP was improperly enacted. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to address damages and other issues (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (City Council of Albuquerque): Argued that ACP lacked a constitutionally protected property right, procedural due process protections were inapplicable because the adoption of the 1995 USP was a legislative act, the Section 1983 claim was not ripe, and the trial court improperly awarded damages (para 6).
• Appellee (Albuquerque Commons Partnership): Contended that the City’s adoption of the 1995 USP violated its due process rights, constituted a downzoning requiring quasi-judicial process, and caused financial losses due to the inability to develop its property under the 1981 USP (paras 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Did ACP have a constitutionally protected property interest under Section 1983?
• Did the City’s adoption of the 1995 USP violate ACP’s procedural due process rights?
• Was ACP’s Section 1983 claim ripe for adjudication?
• Were the damages awarded to ACP properly calculated and supported by evidence?
• Was the trial court’s award of post-judgment interest permissible?
• Were the attorney fees and costs awarded to ACP appropriate?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s award of $8,349,095 in damages to ACP under Section 1983 (para 4).
• The Court reversed the award of post-judgment interest (para 4).
• The Court affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs (para 4).

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Bustamante J. and Pickard J. Pro Tempore concurring):

Constitutionally Protected Property Interest: The Court held that ACP had a state-created property interest under New Mexico law, as the City’s zoning regulations and case law limited the City’s discretion to downzone property without meeting specific criteria. This interest was protected under federal due process (paras 7-26).

Procedural Due Process Violation: The Court found that the City’s adoption of the 1995 USP violated ACP’s due process rights because the process lacked an impartial tribunal and allowed ex parte contacts, which created a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation of ACP’s property rights (paras 27-33).

Adequacy of State Remedies: The Court rejected the City’s argument that ACP’s Section 1983 claim was barred by the availability of state remedies, finding that the City’s actions were not random or unauthorized but rather an official act that failed to provide adequate procedural safeguards (paras 34-40).

Ripeness: The Court determined that ACP’s due process claim was ripe because the due process violation (denial of a meaningful hearing) was distinct from the takings claim, and ACP was not required to seek compensation for the taking before pursuing the due process claim (paras 44-46).

Damages: The Court upheld the jury’s damages award, finding that ACP provided sufficient evidence that its financial losses were caused by the City’s failure to provide due process. The Court also found that ACP’s site plan would have been approved under the 1981 USP (paras 47-51).

Post-Judgment Interest: The Court reversed the award of post-judgment interest, holding that New Mexico law exempts political subdivisions from paying post-judgment interest unless explicitly waived, and no such waiver applied in this case (paras 52-57).

Attorney Fees and Costs: The Court affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs, finding that the fees for the first administrative appeal were necessary to vindicate ACP’s civil rights and that the costs awarded were reasonable and supported by the record (paras 58-65).