This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 INARA CEDRINS, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 30,543 9 SANTA FE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 12 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge 13 Inara Cedrins 14 Chicago, Ill 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 Sutin, Thayer & Browne, P.C. 17 Susan M. Hapka 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION 212 CASTILLO, Judge. 1 Plaintiff appeals pro se from an order granting Defendant’s motion for summary 2 judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract and granting Defendant’s motion 3 to dismiss on the remainder of Plaintiff’s cl aims. We proposed to affirm in a notice 4 of proposed summary disposition, and Plaintiff filed a timely objection to our 5 proposed disposition. Defendant then f iled a timely memorandum in support of our 6 proposed summary disposition. After revi ewing Plaintiff’s objection and Defendant’s 7 memorandum, we remain convinced that affirmance is appropriate and thus we affirm 8 the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims and granting summary judgment 9 to Defendant. 10 “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of 11 material fact and the movant is entitle d to judgment as a matter of law.” Self v. United 12 Parcel Serv., Inc. , 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582 . “The movant 13 need only make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to summary judgment. Upon 14 the movant making a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the party opposing the 15 motion to demonstrate the existence of sp ecific evidentiary facts which would require 16 trial on the merits.” Roth v. Thompson , 113 N.M. 331, 334-35, 825 P.2d 1241, 1244- 17 45 (1992) (citations omitted). A party opposing summary judgment may not simply 18 argue that evidentiary facts requiring a trial on the merits may exist, “nor may [a 193 party] rest upon the allegati ons of the complaint.” Dow v. Chilili Coop. Ass’n , 105 1 N.M. 52, 54-55, 728 P.2d 462, 464-65 (1986). 2

Breach of contract 3 In our previous notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm 4 the order granting summary judgment on Plai ntiff’s breach of contract claim because 5 governmental entities such as Defendant are immune from actions based on contract 6 unless the action is based on a written contract. [RP 266-274, 280-290] SeeNMSA 7 1978, § 37-1-23(A) (1976). We noted that, inthe absence of a valid written contract 8 between Plaintiff and Defendant, soverei gn immunity bars Plaintiff’s breach of 9 contract claim and any other claims based upon an alleged contract or agreement 10 between Plaintiff and Defendant. See, e.g. , Cockrell v. Board of Regents of N.M. State 11 Univ., 2002-NMSC-009, ¶ 10, 132 N.M. 156, 45 P.3d 876 (discussing the doctrine of 12 sovereign immunity generally , and stating that, under Section 37-1-23(A), the state 13 is immune from contract actions that are not based on a valid written contract); see 14 also Handmaker v. Henney , 1999-NMSC-043, ¶ 14, 128 N.M. 328, 992 P.2d 879 15 (interpreting the language of Section 37-1- 23(A) to suggest that the legislature 16 intended to “establish an entitlement on the pa rt of the government not to stand trial 17 or face the other burdens of litigation fo r actions based on unwritten contracts”). 184 Plaintiff was explicitly told to produce a copy of the written contract including 1 a copy of the portions of the student handbook upon which she relied and the portions 2 which were allegedly breached. [RP 267, 384] She failed to do so and instead 3 produced a few course descriptions, some information from Defendant’s website, 4 some emails between herself and an instructor working for Defendant, and additional 5 irrelevant materials, which she claims c onstitute a written contract. [Obj. 1; RP 111- 6 131, 384] We are unpersuaded that these materials establish a written contract 7 between Plaintiff and Defendant. [RP 384] See Campos de Suenos, Ltd. v. County of 8 Bernalillo, 2001-NMCA-043, ¶ 26, 130 N.M. 563, 28 P.3d 1104 (expressing “grave 9 reservations” whether any implied-in-f act contract should override governmental 10 immunity outside of the employment context); cf. Ruegsegger v. Board of Regents of 11 W. N.M. Univ. , 2007-NMCA-030, ¶¶ 21-37, 141 N.M. 306, 154 P.3d 681 (holding 12 that, even if a student under some set of circumstances could assert a breach of 13 contract claim against a governmental entity based upon the terms of a student 14 handbook, given the materials presented in this case, the plaintiff had failed to state 15 such a claim). 16 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to establis h a written contract, the district court was 17 justified in concluding thatDefendant is immune from suit on all causes of action 18 brought by Plaintiff in contract and dismissing those claims with prejudice. 195 Unfair Practices Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 57- 12-1 to -26 (1967, as amended through 1 2009) (UPA) and Other Claims Sounding in Tort 2 In our previous notice, we proposed to affirm the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim 3 based on the UPA because the UPA does not cover governmental entities such as 4 Defendant. See Stansell v. New Mexico Lottery , 2009-NMCA-062, ¶ 12, 146 N.M. 5 417, 211 P.3d 214 (holding that a state entity is not a “person” subject to the UPA). 6 Moreover, we proposed to hold that Plaintiff’s claims based on fraud, 7 misrepresentation, or any other claims sounding in tort were properly dismissed 8 because she failed to present a claim for which immunity had been waived under the 9 Tort Claims Act, NMSA1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -27 (1976, as amended through 2009) 10 (TCA). [RP 384] See Valdez v. State , 2002-NMSC-028, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 667, 54 P.3d 11 71 (holding that sovereign immunity is not waived under the TCA for claims based 12 upon “economic compulsion or constructive fraud” so “the government cannot be 13 sued for these causes of actions”). 14 In her objection, Plaintiff continues toclaim that Defendant and its agents 15 should have given her additional information about the courses provided and 16 information about other less expensive alternatives, but she fails to show how her 17 contentions establish a claim for which immunity has been waived under the TCA. 18 [Obj. 1-2] Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims under the UPA and 19 any other claims for economic damages sounding in tort. 206 Remaining issues 1 In her objection, Plaintiff reasserts her contention that “[e]vidence showed 2 Plaintiff was at the top of her class” and that certain of her questions were never 3 answered. [Obj. 2] She claims that th e failure to answer her questions proves 4 negligence and substandard teaching. [Obj. 2] Given that Plaintiff’s claims against 5 Defendant were dismisse d based on grounds of sovereign immunity, any such 6 negligence on the part of Defendant’s staff in failing to answer Plaintiff’s questions 7 or misstating Plaintiff’s academic standing is immaterial to the dismissal of her 8 complaint. Therefore, these contentions, even if true, do not warrant reversal of the 9 district court’s order dismi ssing Plaintiff’s complaint. See generally In re Estate of 10 Heeter, 113 N.M. 691, 695, 831 P.2d 990, 994 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that “[o]n 11 appeal, error will not be corrected if it will not change the result”). 12 Conclusion 13 For the reasons set forth above and those discussed in our notice of proposed 14 summary disposition, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims 15 and granting summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of 16 contract. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 187 ___________________________________ 1 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

__________________________________ 4 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 5

__________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7