1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ __ 3 Fi lin g D at e: O ct obe r 15, 201 4 4 N O. 32, 119 5 DR . N ATH AN E. BOY D E STA TE, 6 by JA M ES S C OT T B OY D , P er son al 7 Re presen tative, and JAM ES S COT T 8 BO Y D , In di vid ua lly , 9 Pl ai nt iff

s- App el la nt s, 10 v. 11 UN ITED STA TES, ELEP HAN T BU TTE 12 IRRIGATION DIST RIC T, and C ITY 13 OF LAS CRUC ES, 14 Defen da nt s- App el le es . 15 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO NAAÑ A C OUN TY 16 Ja m es J. W ec hsl er , P re sid ing Jud ge 17 Ro be rt

S
. S im on 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 fo r Appe llants 20 Ke nneth J. Gonzales, United State s Attorney 21 Ruth Fuess Keegan, Assistant United States A ttorney 22 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM1 E nvi ro nm en t and N at ur al Re sour ce D ivi sio n, 2 U. S. De partm ent of Justice 3 Ignacia S. Moreno, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 4 Ma tth ewL itt le ton , A tto rn ey Appe llate S ec tio n 5 W ashingt on, D .C. 6 for Appellee United States 7 Law O ffice of Steven L . H ernandez, P. C. 8 Steven L . H ernandez 9 Las C ru ces , NM 10 for Appellee Ele phant Butte Irrigation District 11 St ei n & Bro ck m an n, P.A. 12 Jay F
. S te in 13 Se th R
. F ull er

ton 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 City of L as Cruce s 16 H ar ry “ Pe te ” Co nne lly 17 Marcia

Dr iggers 18 Las C ru ces , NM 19 for Appellee City

of L as Cruce s1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} Ja m es S co tt Bo y d, in his ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity , a nd a s r ep re sent at ive f or the 4 Estate of Dr . N athan E. Boy d (Boy d ) ap p eals from the district court’ s order 5 dism issin g his cla im s to w ater rights in the Low er Rio Gr ande adj udicatio n are a. 6 Bo y d w as pe rm itt ed to int er ve ne in ongo ing w at er ri ght s ad j udi catio n pr oc ee din gs i n 7 t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt . Th e d i s t r i c t c o u rt d i s mi s s e d B o yd ’s c l a i ms o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a tB o yd 8 failed to assert a cognizable claim to wa ter right s, and that Boy d’ s claim s wer e barr ed 9 b y t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f

r e s j u d i c a t a . We a f

f i rm. 10 I
. BACKGRO UND 11 { 2} Bo y d’ s c la im ed w at er ri ght s st em f ro m a ct ivi tie s of

his pr ed ec es sor

in int er es t, 12 the Rio Gr ande Dam

and Irr igation Com

pany (the Com pany ) over a century

ago. I n 13 1891 , an A ct of Co ngr es s (the 1891 A ct ) gr an te d ri ght s of w ay thr oughpub lic lands 14 to irr ig at io n c om

pa ni es . See A ct

of M arch 3, 1891 , c h. 561 , 26 S ta t. 110 1. T he 15 Co m pany w as f orm ed in 1893 to b uil d ane tw ork of da m s, c an al s, a nd r es er

voi rs f or 16 irrigation of the area

surroundin g the Low er R io Grande. See Boyd v. United States , 17 No. 96-476L, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 21, 1997). In 1895, the Com pany rec eived 18 pe rm its f

ro m the S ec re tary

of the I nte ri or

a nd b eg anw ork onthe ir riga ti on p ro

j ec t. 1 9 T o hel p f

i n a n c e a n i rr i g a t i o n p r o

j e c ta l o n g t h e R i o G r a n d e , t h e D a m a n dI rr i g a tio n2

1 an d L an d C om

pany L im ite d ( the E ngl ishCo m pany ) w as c re at ed , a nd i n 18 96, the 2 Co m pany le as ed a ll of it s r igh ts i n th e pr oj ec t t o th e E ngl ishCo m pany . Id

. T he 3 E ngl ishCo m

pany a lso a cquir ed

c ontro l of

a ll of the Co m

pany ’ s sto ck
. T he E ngl ish 4 Co m pany la te r tr an sf

er re d a ll ri ght s an d int er es ts in the Co m pany to D r. N athan B oy d. 5 { 3} A lso in 1896 , the S ec re tary of the I nterio r iss ue d asus pe nsi on o rd er or 6 em barg o su spe ndi ng w ork onthe ir ri ga tio n pr oj ec t. T he U nit ed S ta te s so ught

to 7 en j ointhe Co m

pany f ro m c om plet in g the ir

ri ga tio n pr oj ec t and w as gr an te d a 8 te m po rary inju nc ti on . Id

. at 3. A ft er a heari ng, the inj unc tio n w as dis sol ve d and the 9 su it was d is m is se d. Id

. The Suprem e Cou rt o f th e T erritory of N ewMexico aff

irm ed 10 the dis m iss al , how ev er , the U nit ed St at es Su pr em e Court

r ev er se d and r em an de d th e 11 case to th e district court for a determ ination regar ding the irrigation projec t’ s im pact 12 of th e n av ig ab il it y

of t he Rio Gran de
. U

nit ed Sta tes v . R io G rand

e D am & I

rri gat ion 13 Co

. , 17 4 U.S. 6 90 , 69 5- 96 , 71 0 (1 89 9)
. 14 { 4} T he dis tr ic t c ou rt de te rm ine d th at c om ple tio n of the ir ri ga tio n pr oj ec t w oul d 1 5 not subs t a n t i a l l y

d i m i n i s h t h e n a v i g ab i l i t y o f t h e R i o G r a n d e a n dd i s m i s s e dt he 16 U nit ed

S ta te s’ c om

pla int
. T he U nit ed

S ta te s app ealed to the S upr em e Co urt of the 17 Te rritory

of N ew Mexico, which affir m ed the dism issal and r em anded the case back 18 to th e di st ric t cou rt for ad di ti o n a l he ari ng s. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ri o Gr an de Dam &3

1 Irrigati on C

o. , 1 90 0- NMSC -0 42 , ¶ 15 , 1 0 N.M. 61 7, 65 P. 27 6, rev’d , 184 U
. S. 416 , 2 425. 3 { 5} The U nited States supp lem ented its c om plaint in the district c ourt, alleging that 4 the Com

pany had forfe ited its intere st in the irrigation projec t because the proj ect had 5 not be enc om ple te d w ith in the f

ive -y ear tim e fr am e se t fo rth in Se ct ion 20 o f the 189 1 6 Ac t. T he Com

pany failed to respond to th e supplem ental com plaint and t he district 7 co urt e nte re d ade fa

ult j udgm en t, f

ind ing that the Co m

pany ha d f or fe ite d it s r igh ts t o 8 co m ple te the pr oj ec t and p er m an entl y en

j oin ed the Co m pany f ro m a tte m pti ng t o 9 co m pl et e th e p ro

ject. U nit ed States v . R io G rand

e D am & I

rri gat ion Co

. , 190 6- 10 NMSC -0 13 , ¶ 3 , 1 3 N.M. 3 86 , 85 P. 39 3, af f’d su b n om. Rio Gra nde Dam & 11 Irrigati on Co. v. United States , 215 U
. S. 266 ( 1909 ). T he fo rf ei tur e w as a ff

irm ed by 12 both the Suprem e Court of the T erritory of N ewMex i co an d the United State s 13 Supr em e Co ur t. R io G rand e D am & I

rri gat ion Co

. , 190 6- N MS C- 013, ¶ 47; R io 14 G rand

e D am & I

rri gat ion Co

. , 215 U
. S. a t 27 8. 15 { 6} De spite the passage of m any y ears, the English C om pany and Boy d contin ued 16 t o p u rs u e related claim s, including an action in the United States Court of F ederal 17 Cl ai m s. See Boyd , N o. 96- 476L , sli p op . a t 5. I n th at c as e, Bo y d a lle ge d th at

the 1 8 Un i t ed St at es ’ co n t ro l o v eri rr i g a t i o n wo rk s t h at b eg an as p ar to f t h e C o m p an y’ s 19 ir ri ga tio n pr oj ec t c onst itu te d atakin g of his pr ope rty

a nd s ough t j ust

c om pe nsa tio n4

1 a n d pu ni ti ve da m ag es . Id

. Bo y d a ls o a ll eg edfrau d. Id

. The court held that Bo yd’s 2 ta kin g c la im s w er e barr ed by the statut e of

li m itat io ns and th at

it did not ha ve 3 juri sd ic ti on as t o t he frau d c la im s. Id

. at 8 , 10
. 4 { 7} Mos t r ec en tly

Bo y d in te rv en ed

in ongo ing w at er ri ght s a dj udi catio n 5 proceedings before the T hird Jud icial Di s t ri ct Court of N ewMexico. T hat 6 adj udication invol ved water rights to th e L ower

Rio Gr ande Stream

Sy stem , to w hich 7 the U nit ed

S ta te s of A m er ic a, the E le phant B utt e Ir ri ga tio n D istri ct

( E BI D ), the Ci ty 8 of L as Cr uc es, a nd th e Sta te of

N ewMe xic o O ff

ic e of the S ta te E ngi ne er

w er e al l 9 parti es . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu ed a n or de r co m

m en ci ng an e xpe dit ed int er se 10 pr oc ee din g to de te rm ine Bo y d’ s c la im s. T he or de r dir ec te d B oy d to f ile astate m en t 11 of c la im , de sc ri bin g inde ta il al l of the w at er ri ght s cla im ed in the L ow er Ri o G rande 12 ad j udi catio n ar ea . Fo r ea ch w at er ri ght cl ai m ed , Bo y d wa s to spec if y “ the e le m en ts 13 of the wa ter right includi ng[:] the priority date, source of w ater, purpose of use, place 14 of use , poi nt o f div er sio n, loc at iona nd am ount of ir ri ga te d a cr ea ge , the a m ount of 15 wa ter cla im ed and the bases for the elem ents of the claim ed wa ter right(s). ” 16 { 8} Af

ter Boy d filed his statem ent of claim s, the U nited States and EBI D m oved 17 to dism iss Boy d’ s claim s pursuant to Rules 1-012(B)(1), (6) N MRA . T he City of L as 18 Cr uc es a lso m ove d to dis m iss , all eg ing that B oy d ha d f ai le d to c om

ply w iththe 19 re qui re m en ts o f the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c as e m an ag em en t or de r an d wi th the r equir em en ts5

1 for a decree as described in N MSA 1978 , Section 72-4-19 (1907). T he district court 2 gr an te d th e m ot ions to dis m iss , f ind ing that B oy d ha d f

ai le d to state ac la im

upo n 3 which re lief could be granted and that his claim s wer e barr ed by the principles of res 4 jud ic at a. Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed
. 5 II. D ISCU SSION 6 { 9} As a prelim inary m atter, we note that Boy d’ s argum ents r egarding his claim ed 7 wate r rig ht s are int erwo ve n with di sc us si on of th e wat er ri gh ts of o th er “ Cl ai m an ts .” 8 H o w e v e r , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s o r d e r o n ap p e a l i n t h i s c a s e p e rt a i n s o n l y t o c l a i ms 9 br ough t by

Bo y d. Acc or di ngl y , w e do n ot a ddr es s B oy d’ s arg um en ts r el at ed to the 10 wate r ri gh ts cla im s o f ot he r pa rti es . 11 { 10} Bo y d m ak es a num be r of a rg um en ts i n su

ppor t of r ev er sa l. H is arg um en ts 12 ce nte r on the as se rt ion tha t the fe de ra l gove rn m en t se iz ed ir ri ga tio n in fr as tr

uc tur es , 13 ri ght s- of

-w ay , a nd w at er

r igh ts f ro m his pr ed ec es sor

in int er es t i n th e earl y

190 0s. 1 4 B e c au s e o u r

r e v i e w i s l i mi t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’s d e c i s i o n t o d i s mi s s B o yd ’s c l a i ms 15 ba se d on( 1) Bo y d’ s f

ai lur e to sta te a cl ai m upon w hic h re lie f can be gr an te d; and ( 2) 16 pr inc ipl es of

r es j udi cata , w e onl y

c onsi de r Bo y d’ s ar gum en ts re la te d to tho se iss ue s.6

1 A . F ail ur e to S ta te a C lai m 2 1. Stand ard of R eview 3 { 11} “ A district c ourt’ s decision to dism iss a case f or failure to state a claim

under 4 Rule 1-012(B)(6) is r eviewe d de novo .” Valdez v. State, 200 2- N MS C- 028, ¶ 4, 132 5 N
. M. 667 , 54 P. 3d 7 1. “ A Ru le [ 1- 0] 12( [B ] )( 6) m oti on i s onl yproper w hen it appears 6 tha t pl ai nti ff

c anne ith er

r ec ove r nor

obt ai n r el ie f unde r an y

state of f ac ts p ro vable 7 under the claim .” Id

. (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Inr ev ie w ing 8 a dis tr ic t co urt’ s de ci sio n to dis m iss f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im , w e ac ce pt a s tr ue a ll 9 w el l- ple ad ed

f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns i n th e co m pla int a nd r es olv e al l do ubt s inf av or of 10 the com

plaint’s suffic iency .” Nass-Rom ero v. Visa U .S. A. Inc. , 2 01 2- NMCA-0 58 , ¶ 11 6, 279 P.3d 772 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). 12 2. Boyd’s Claim s to Water Rights 13 { 12} Boy d ar gu e s t hat t he di str i c t c ourt e rr e d i n f i nd i ng t hat he f

a i l e d t o state a 14 co gni za

ble c la im to an ex ist ing w at er ri ght
. W e dis ag re e. T he pur pose of w at er r igh ts 15 ad jud ic at io n i n New M ex ic o i s t o de te rm in e ex is ti ng wate r ri gh ts . See N
. M. Co nst . 16 ar t. X V I, § 1 (“ A ll ex ist ing r igh ts t o th e use of an y w at er s in this sta te fo r an y use fu l 17 or be ne fi ci al pur

pose a re he re by

r ec ogni ze d and c onf

irm ed
. ”) ; se e als o State e x re l. 18 R ey nolds v

. P ec os V

all eyA rtesia n C

onse rva nc

y D ist
. , 1983-NMS C-044, ¶ 2, 99 N. M.7

1 699, 663 P
. 2d 3 58 ( “ T he ob j ec t of a n a dj udi catio n su it is t o de te rm ine a ll cl ai m s to 2 th e u se of t he wate r in a gi ve n s tre am syste m .”). 3 { 13} T o esta

bli sh an exi sti ng wate r ri ght , a cl ai m an t m ust de m onstrate his int en t t o 4 ap pr opr ia te the w at er

a nd h e m ust sho wthat he ha s a ct

ua lly di ve rte d the w at er

a nd 5 ap pl ie d it to be ne fic ia l u se . Se e Sta te e x re l. R ey nolds v

. M

ira nda , 197 2- N MS C- 003, 6 ¶ 9, 83 N
. M. 443 , 493 P
. 2d 4 09 ( hol din g th at “ m an -m ad e div er sio n, tog ethe r w ith 7 intent to apply wa ter to benef icial use and actual application of the water to beneficial 8 use , is ne cessar

y to cl ai m w at er r igh ts b y appr opr ia tio n inN ewMe xic o” ); se e als o 9 Snowv . A bal os , 1914 -N MS C- 022, ¶ 12, 18 N
. M. 681 , 140 P
. 104 4 ( hol din g th at the 10 co nti nui ng r igh t t o di ve rt a nd u til iz e w at er

m ust be pr ec ed ed

by “ [t ] he int en tio n to 11 apply to beneficial use, the diversion works, and the actual d iversion of the water ”); 12 Ca rang el o v . A lbu que rque -B ernal ill o C nty
. W ate r Util

. A uth

. , 201 4- N MC A -0 32, 13 ¶ 43, 320 P. 3d 492 (“ Ther e m ust be an ultim ate, actual beneficial u s e o f t h e water 14 res ul ti ng fro m th e di ve rs io n.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ), ce rt. 15 denied by Caran gelo v. N .M . State E ng’r , 20 14 -NMCER T-00 2, 3 22 P.3d 10 62
. 16 { 14} Bo y d’ s c la im s, w hic h are ba se d on the Co m pany ’ s in iti al w ork onthe ir ri ga tio n 17 p r ojec t i n 1 89 6, ca nn ot ser ve as t he ba si s fo r ex is ti ng wate r ri gh ts . Boyd 1 8 a c kn o w l e d g e s t h a th e i s n o t c u rr e n t l y d i v e rt i n g o r u s i n g t h e w a t e r t o w h i c h h e c l a i ms 19 rights and th at neither he nor the Com pany has diverted or distribu ted irrigation water8

1 for m ore than one hund red y ears. Bo yd al s o acknowledges that the district court 2 en te re d ade cr ee of fo rf ei tur e as to the Co m

pany ’ s r igh ts t o it s ir

ri ga tio n pr oj ec t and 3 wa ter rights which w as aff irm ed by both th e Suprem e Court o f the T erritory of N ew 4 Me xic o an d the Su

pr em e Co urt of the U nit ed St ates in 19 09
. Se e R io G rand e D am 5 & I rriga tio n C

o. , 190 6- N MS C- 013, ¶

47; R io G rand

e D am & I

rri gat ion Co

. , 215 6 U
. S. at 277. N one the le ss, Bo y d ar gue s tha t his cl ai m ed ri ght s re m ai n in ta ct be ca use 7 gove rn m en ta l i nte rf

er en ce pr ev en te d the Co m pany fr om

c om ple tin g th e pr oj ec t and 8 fu ll y de ve lo pi ng it s wat er ri gh ts . W e are no t p ers ua de d. 9 { 15} Boy d’ s argum ent relies prim ar i l y o n what he ca lls the M en de nhal l doctrine, 10 re fe rr ing to Sta te e

x re l. R ey nolds v

. M

en de nhal l , 196 1- N MS C- 083, 6 8 N
. M
. 4 67, 362 11 P. 2d 998. Boy d contends that, under M en de nhal l , w at er

r igh ts c an not

be f or fe ite d f or 12 non- use w he re ce rt ai n cir cu m stanc es pr ev en t the ow ne r fr om pe rf ec tin g th ose r igh ts. 13 W e fi nd B oy d’ s r el ianc e on M en de nhal l m is pl aced
. 14 { 16} In M

en de nhal l , a landowne r dr ill ed a w el l an d us ed the w at er sup ply to ir ri ga te 15 cro ps . Id

. ¶ 3. S hortly be fo re the landowne r co m ple te d c onstru ct ionof

the ir ri ga tio n 16 w orks, the St at e E ngi ne er de cl ar ed the lands to b e part

of the Ro sw el l A rt es ian B as in. 17 Id

. ¶¶ 1- 3. A statut or

y sui t f or a dj udi catio n of

r igh ts t o w at er

in the ba sin w as f

ile d. 18 Id. ¶ 3. T he dis tr ic t co urt fo und tha t the landowne r ha d not ac qui re d a va lid r igh t t o 19 irr i gat e be c aus e t he i rr i gat i on w or ks w e r e no t c om

pl e t e a t t he t i m e t he w a t ers w ere9

1 de cl ared as p art of t he Bas in
. Id

. ¶ 4. Our Suprem e Court h el d that the landowner, 2 w ho lawfu ll y in iti at ed de ve lop m en t of

his w at er

r igh t and d ili ge ntl y

c ar ri ed it to 3 co m ple tio n, did ac qui re a val id w at er ri ght w ith a pr ior ity da te as of the be gin nin g of 4 his work, notwithstanding the fac t that the lands in volv ed we re put into the declared 5 ba si n b efo re wo rkwas c om pl et edan d wat er p ut to be ne fic ia l u se . Id

. ¶ 29
. 6 { 17} T h e p r e s e n t c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m M en de nhal l be ca

use he re , the 7 Co m pany , by f ai lin g to a nsw er the U nit ed St at es ’ supp le m en ta l com pla int be fo re the 8 dis tr ic t c ourt i n 19 03, f or fe ite d it s w at er

r igh ts and d id not di li ge nt ly c ar ry out it s 9 pr ojec t t o c om

pl et io n. 10 B. Boyd’s Claim s of Fr aud and Conspir acy 11 { 18} Boy d denies that his water rights w ere forfe ited or abandoned. He asserts that 12 the United States governm ent and the Com pany ’ s attorney s entered into a conspiracy 1 3 t o fr au du l en t l y “ v o i d ” t h e C o m p an y’ s wa t er ri g h t s . Ac co rd i n g t o Bo yd, t h e “U.S .’s 14 A tto rn ey s” c onsp ir ed

w iththe Co m

pany ’ s a tto rn ey s to fi le a supp le m en ta l c om pla int 15 in th e i ni t i a l n a vi gat i onl i t i gat i on , w hi c h t he C om pany ’ s a t t or

ne y s pur po se l y f a iled 16 to answ er . A s ar es ult , the dis tr ic t co urt e nte re d th e de fa ult j udgm en t i n f

av or of the 17 U n it ed St at es an d ord ered th e fo rfei tu re of the Com pa ny’ s water rig ht s . B o yd 18 co nte nds tha t be ca

use the f or fe iture a ct ionw as the di rect r es ult of c onsp ir ac y

a nd10

1 fr au d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d t h e C o m p a n y ’ s a t t o rn e y s , i t i s i n v a l i d
. W e a r e not 2 pe rs ua de d. 3 { 19} O ur

r ev ie w of the r ec or d r ev ea ls tha t on e of the Co m pany ’ s a tto rn ey s m ay

ha ve 4 sugg ested a legal strategy to the U. S. Attorney for forfe iture of the Com pany ’ s wate r 5 ri ght s. S ubse que ntl y , the Co m pany ’ s a tto rn ey s f

ai le d to a nsw er

the U nit ed

S ta te s’ 6 su pp le m enta l c om

pla int f or f or fe iture a nd a s ar es ult , the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d a 7 de cr ee de cl ar ing the Co m pany ’s wate r ri ght s to be f or fe ite d. T he se f

ac ts— by 8 the m se lve s—d o no t e sta bli sh a c onsp ir ac y

be tw ee n th e U nit ed

S ta te s and the 9 Co m pany ’ s a tto rn ey s to c om m it fr au d. Se e Ca in v. Ch am pio n W ind owCo

. of 10 Albuquerqu e, LLC , 200 7- N MC A -0 85, ¶ 28, 142 N
. M. 209 , 164 P. 3d 90 ( ex pla ini ng 11 the three ele m ents o f conspiracy : “ (1) that a c onsp iracy betwee n two or m ore 12 ind ivi dua ls e xis te d, ( 2) that sp ec if ic w ro ngf

ul a ct s w er e carr ie d ou t by [ the 13 d] efendants pursuant to the conspiracy , and (3) th at [the p] laintiffs we re dam aged as 14 a re sul t of

suc h a ct s” (a lte ratio ns, int er na l quota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; see 15 also S tate ex rel. P eterson v. A ramark Corr. Servs. , L LC , 201 4- N MC A -0 36, ¶

39, 321 16 P. 3d 12 8 (stating th at the elem ents of fraud ar e “ that t h e o t h er party (1) m ade a 17 m isrepresentation of fact .
. . (2) with the intent to deceive and to indu ce the inj ured 18 party to ac t up on i t, (3 ) an d upon w hic h th e inj ur ed party a ct ua lly a nd d etri m en ta lly 19 relies” ( om issio n in origin al) (inter nal quot ation m arks and citation om itted)).11

1 { 20} If a fr au d was in de edpe rp et rat ed , i t w a s a frau d o n t he Co m pa ny by it s o wn 2 attorney s, the r em edy

for w hich would no t be for t h i s Co u rt to reverse the Third 3 Judi ci al D istri ct ’ s 19 03 d ec re e of fo rf ei tur e as Bo y d su gge sts . Rathe r, the Co m pany 4 co ul d h av e b ro ug ht an act io n a ga in st it s at to rn ey s fo r m al pr act ic e. See P ioneer Inv. 5 Se rv s. Co

. v . B runs wi ck

A sso cs . L td. P ’s hip , 507 U. S. 380, 396 (199 3) (stating that 6 “ cl ie nts m

ust be he ld ac co unt ab le fo r the a ct s and o m iss ion s of the ir a tto rn ey s” ); see 7 als o R es olu tio n T

rus t C orp. v . F erri , 1995 -N MS C- 055, ¶

17, 120 N
. M. 320 , 901 P
. 2d 8 738 (s ta tin g t ha t th e “ re m edy f or a tto rn ey f ai lur e lie s inm al pr ac tic e sui t. ”)
. T o th e 9 extent that Boy d alleges fraud against th e United States, the Feder al T ort Claim s Act 1 0 “ p ro v i d es t h e e x cl u s i v e r emed y fo r t o rt ac t i o n s ag ai n s tt h e f ed er al g o v er n m en t [. ]” 11 R eh obot

h M cK inl eyCh ris tia n H

ea lth ca re Se rv s., I

nc . v . U

. S. D ep ’t of H ea lth & 12 H um an S ervs . , 853 F. Su

pp. 2d 1 107, 1112 ( D
. N
. M. 201 2) ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 13 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). A cc or din gly , Bo y d do es not ha ve ac au se of

act io n for

f ra ud 14 against the United States in state court. W e conclude that Boy d’ s claim s of conspiracy 15 an d fr au d a re i rrel ev an t an d a re u ns up po rte d b y th e rec or d. 16 C. Re s Judicata 17 { 21} T he doc tr ine of c la im pr ec lus ion , or “ re s ju dic at a is f ound ed on p ri nc ipl es of 18 fairness and justice. ” Ki rb y v. Gua rd ia n Li

fe Ins . Co. o

f Am. , 201 0- N MS C- 014, ¶ 61, 19 148 N .M. 106, 231 P. 3d 87 (em phasis o m itted). I t “ ensures finality , a dvances judicial12

1 econom

y , and avoid s piecem eal litigation.” B ank of Santa Fe v. M arc y P laz a A sso cs . , 2 2002 -N MC A -0 14, ¶

14, 131 N
. M. 537 , 4 0 P.3 d 442. “ T he pr inc ipl e of c la im 3 pr ec lus ionpr ec lud es a cl ai m w he n ther e has be en a fu ll an d f ai r oppo rt uni ty to lit iga te 4 issues arising out of that claim .” Tu nis v . Co untryClub E sta tes H om eo wn er

s A ss’ n, 5 Inc. , 201 4- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 19, 318 P
. 3d 7 13 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m arks a nd c itatio n 6 om it te d) , c e r t
. d

e n i ed , 201 4- N MC E RT -0 01, 321 P
. 3d 9 36. Re s j udi cataappl ie s if f our 7 el em en ts are m et : “ (1 ) the part ie s m ust be the sa m e, (2 ) the c au se of a ct ionm ust be 8 the sa m e, ( 3) the re m

us t ha ve be enaf

ina l de ci sio n inthe f

ir st s uit , a nd ( 4) the f

ir st 9 decision m

ust have been on th e m erits.” Id

. ¶ 20 ( int er na l quot at ionm ar

ks and 10 citati o n om itted). “ Whether the elem ents of claim preclusion are satisfied is a legal 11 questio n, w hich we r eview de novo .” Id

. (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m arks a nd c itatio n 12 om itted). 13 { 22} In this case, the forfe iture action wa s litigated extensively in the Third Judicial 14 District Court, the Suprem e Court of the Te rritory of Ne w Me xico and in th e U nited 15 St at es Supr em e Co ur t. Se e R io G rand e D am & Irrigati on C

o. , 215 U
. S. 266 ; se e als o 16 U nit ed Sta tes v . R io Gra nd e D am & I rri gat ion Co

. , 190 6- N MS C- 013. Bo y d a lso 17 li ti ga te d a ta ki ng cl ai m in th e Fed eral Co urt o f Cl ai m s. Boyd , N o. 96- 476L , sli p op . 18 at5.13

1 { 23} In light of these prior decisions , the district c ourt found that res j udicata applied 2 be ca use : ( 1) the part ie s di d no t di sput e tha t the f ir st e le m en t ha d be enm et ( tha t the 3 part ie s ina ll the sui ts w er e the sa m e) ; ( 2) the c au se of a ct ionin the e ar lie r de ci sio ns 4 w as the sa m e, ste m

m ing f ro m the Co m pany ’ s in iti al c la im s ir

ri ga tion pr oj ec t and 5 related w ater r ights ; (3 ) the prior decisions were f inal because the initial forfeiture 6 wa s a final order of the district court, as it was subsequentlyaff irm ed by the Te rritory 7 of N ewMe xic o S upr em e Co urt and Bo y d w as de nie d post -j udgm en t re lie f; a nd ( 4) 8 the pr ior

de ci sio ns w er e on the m er its of Bo y d’ s c la im s be ca use both a ppe llate c ourts 9 ev al ua te d th e m er its of the f or fe iture a nd r

ule d onthat ba sis
. W e ag re e w iththe 10 di st ric t co ur t’s re as on in g wi th res pe ctto th e se co nd , th ird an d fo ur th ele m en ts . 11 { 24} T he c ri tic al iss ue be fo re thi s court is the fi rs t re s ju dic at a el em en t. Bo y d a sse rt s 12 tha t, in its or de r to dis m iss , the dis tr ic t co urt inc or re ct ly sta te d tha t the part ie s di d no t 13 dispu te that this elem ent had been m et. Ac cording to Boy d, he has continu ally alleged 14 tha t be ca

use D r. Bo y d him se lf w as not aparty to the f or fe iture pr oc ee din gs, the f ir st 15 el em en t of

r es j udi catais not

sat is fie d. He re it erat es th atarg um en t o n app eal
. 16 { 25} “ Re s j udi catapr ev en ts a party or its pr ivi es fr om

r ep eate dly

sui ng anothe r fo r 17 the sam e cause of action.” D ef lon v . Saw

ye rs , 2006 -N MS C- 025, ¶ 2, 139 N
. M. 637 , 18 13 7 P .3d 57 7. Be cau se Dr. Bo y d was no t a na m ed pa rty i n th e p rev io us li ti ga ti on , we14

1 m ust de te rm ine w he the r he w as in pr ivi ty w ith the Co m pany , w hic h wa s aparty

to the 2 lit iga tio n. 3 Ther e is no definitio n of “ privity ” w hich can be autom atically applied 4 in all cases involv ing th e doctrines of re s ju d i cata and collateral 5 es top pe l. T hus, e ac h c as e m ust be c ar ef ull y e xa m ine d to de te rm ine 6 w he th er the c ir cu m stanc es r equir e its appl ic at ion
. T his is so, 7 notw ith standi ng the ge ne ra l a ssu m pti on tha t r es j udi cataappl ie s on ly if 8 the part ie s inthe ins tant a ct ion w er e the sa m e and ide nti ca l partie s in th e 9 pr io r act i o n r e s ul ti ng in a jud gm en t. Pri vi ty requ ire s, at a m in im um , a 10 subs tantial identity betwee n the issu es in controversy and showing th at 11 the part ie s inthe tw o a ct ion s are r ea lly an d subst an tia lly in i nte re st the 12 sam e. 13 Id

. ¶ 4 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ark s and c itatio n om itt ed ). P ri vity m ay e xis t w he re the 14 part ie s have a“ co nc ur re nt r el at ion shi p to the sa m e pr ope rty ri ght ” or a“ suc ce ssi ve 15 relationship to the sam e property or right.” Id

. (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns 16 om itted). 17 { 26} In the pr es en t ca se , Bo y d a sse rt s th at the Co m pany tr an sf er re d it s in te re sts in 1 8 t h e i rr i g a t i o n p r o

j e c tt o t h e E n g l i s h C o mp a n y, w h i c h i n tu rn t r a n s f e r r e dt h e s a me 19 int er es ts t o D r. Bo y d. Bo y d’ s c la im s ne ce ssari ly depe nd on his a sse rt ionthat he is 20 suc ce sso r in i nte re st t o th e w at er ri ght s of the Co m pany . T his put s hi m

in pr ivi ty w ith 21 the Co m

pany a nd a cc or din gly , f

or the pur pose s of re s ju dic at a, he is c onsi de re d th e 22 sa m e party . T he re fo re , w e co nc lud e tha t a ll fo ur e le m en ts o f re s ju dic at a ar e m et a nd 23 th atBo y d’s cl ai m s ar e p recl ud edas a res ul t.15

1 III. CO NC LUS ION 2 { 27} Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t. 3 { 28} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ________ ____ ___ 5 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 6 WE CO NCUR:
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e
9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 10 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e