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 Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque and individual plaintiffs challenged the City of Albuquerque's Montano Bridge project, alleging it caused damages and sought to enjoin its construction. They claimed the project constituted a nuisance and violated various statutes, including the New Mexico Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act (PHSPA) and the Rio Grande Valley State Park Act (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Federal District Court, May 17, 1989: The case was removed to federal court but subsequently remanded to state court (para 3).
- New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1991: On interlocutory appeal, the court held that the project was not a nuisance per se and remanded the case for further proceedings (paras 2, 10).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the state courts lacked jurisdiction during certain periods, the district court erred in dismissing their claims of nuisance and statutory violations, and sought to amend their complaint to include new claims under the Rio Grande Valley State Park Act and other statutes (paras 1, 4, 14).
- Defendant-Appellee (City of Albuquerque): Contended that the project complied with all legal requirements, the claims under PHSPA were barred, and the plaintiffs' nuisance claims were unsupported (paras 2, 13, 17).
Legal Issues
- Did the state courts have jurisdiction during the proceedings following the federal court's remand order?
- Was the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims of nuisance per se and under PHSPA proper?
- Should the plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint to include new claims of nuisance in fact and statutory violations?
Disposition
- The court affirmed the dismissal of the nuisance per se claims and PHSPA claims.
- The court reversed the dismissal of claims based on nuisance in fact and statutory violations, remanding the case for further proceedings (paras 2, 19).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Donnelly and Pickard JJ. concurring):
Jurisdiction: The court held that state courts regained jurisdiction upon the federal court's remand order, even before the certified copy was mailed. Actions taken by the state court during this period were valid, particularly since the plaintiffs themselves filed the remand order with the state court (paras 5-9).
Nuisance Per Se and PHSPA: The court reaffirmed its prior decision that the project was not a nuisance per se and that PHSPA did not apply to actions completed before its effective date. The district court correctly dismissed these claims (paras 10-13).
Nuisance in Fact and Statutory Violations: The court found that the district court misinterpreted its prior mandate. Plaintiffs could pursue claims of nuisance in fact and violations of statutes such as the Rio Grande Valley State Park Act and the Wildlife Conservation Act. The court emphasized that compliance with legal requirements does not preclude claims of nuisance in fact if the project causes harm during construction or operation (paras 16-18).
Amendment of Complaint: The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs should be allowed to present new evidence and claims consistent with the court's prior opinion (paras 14-15, 19).