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: A ugus t 7, 201 7 4 N O. 35, 286 5 LORI KRE UTZ ER and 6 MA RC ELLE CA RU SO, 7 Pl ai nti ff

s- Appe llants , 8 v

. 9 ALD O LEOP OLD HIGH SC HOOL, 10 De fendant-Appellee, 11 an d 12 N I S H A M I L L I G A N , B A R B A R A J I M E N E Z, 13 an d SAFECO I NSURANCE COMPANY OF 14 AMERICA, 15 D ef

en da nts

. 16 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF GR AN T C OUN TY 17 Je nn if

er E. D el an ey , D ist ri ctJu dg e 18 Law Offic e o f Ch ris to ph er D. Lee, LLC 19 Christoph er D . L ee 20 Albuquerque, N M 21 fo r Appe llants1 Narv aez Law Fi rm , P.A.

2 He nry F. Narvaez 3 Albuquerque, N M 4 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VA NZ I, C hief Jud ge. 3 { 1} T his appe al r equir es us t o answ er tw o qu es tio ns o f law . T he f ir st que sti on, one 4 of fir st im pr es si on , is whet he r de fen da nt Ald o Leo po ld Hig h S ch oo l (ALHS), a 5 charter school in Gr ant County , Ne w Mexico, is a publ ic school and therefor e subjec t 6 t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n s a f

f o r d e d t o g o v e rn me n t a l e n t i t i e s b y t h e N e w M e x i c o T o rtC l a i ms 7 A ct ( the T CA ), N MS A 197 8, §§ 41- 4- 1 to -3 0 (1 976, as am en de d th ro ugh 2015 ). T he 8 se co nd que sti on is whe the r the ne gli ge nc e cl ai m as se rt ed ag ai nst A L H S in this c as e 9 fa lls w ith in Se ct ion 41- 4- 6( A ) of the T CA , a n e xc ep tio n to the T CA ’ s ge ne ra l r ule of 10 governm ental im

m unityfrom

tort liability . I n the proceedings below, AL HS argued 11 in s ep ar at e m oti ons tha t i t i s en ti tl ed to sum m ar y j udgm en t be ca

use , a s am atte r of 12 law, (1) A LH S is a public school protected by the TC A, and (2) Plaintiffs’ negligence 1 3 c l a i m d o e s n o t f

a l l w i t h i n t h e w a i v e r o f T C A i m m u n i t y p r o v i d e d b y S ec tio n 41 -4

- 14 6( A ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d bo th m oti ons. W e af fi rm both or de rs . 15 FACTUAL BACKGRO UND 16 { 2} A t the e nd o f the sc hool day on M ar ch 1, 201 2, Marc el le Caru so w as w al kin g 17 to h er c ar in the A L H S stu de nt p ar kin g lo t w he n sh e w as a ssaul te d and b ea te n by 18 fe llo wA L H S stu de nt N ish a Mi lli ga n. N ish a ha d bee n sitt ing in a f ri en d’ s c ar

in the 19 sc hool park ing lot

w ai tin g f or Marc el le , an d whe n Mar ce lle cam e out of the sc hool19 Plaintiff calls the incident a “ prolong ed beating” but cites n o ev idence 1 20 es tabl is hi ng th e dur at io n o f th e as sa ul t. 2 1 bu i l di ng , N i sh aw a l ke d a c r os s t he p a rki ng l ot , c a l l e d M a r c e l l e ’ s nam e , a nd b e gan 2 be at ing he r. N ish a knoc ke d Mar ce lle to the gr ound an d c ont inu ed to be at he r, c au sin g 3 serious i nj ur i e s, i nc l ud i ng a t or n r ight anterior-cruciate ligam ent that required surgical 4 re co nstru ct iona nd p ai nf ul r eh ab ili ta tio n. 1 5 { 3} N ish a la te r sa id s he did thi s be ca use she w as an gr

y w ith Marc el le f

or bum pin g 6 he r in the ha ll tha t day

a nd f or laughi ng a t he r at an earl ie r tim e she co uld not r ec al l. 7 Nisha did not re port to any AL HS teacher or staff m em

ber that Mar celle had laughed 8 at her. Marc elle testified that before March 1, 2012 , she had never been threatened 9 by a ny one a t A L H S, inc lud ing N ish a, a nd w as ne ve r af ra id f or he r sa fe ty

a t sc hool

. 10 { 4} AL HS Dir ector E ric A hner testified that Nisha told him after the incident th at 11 Marce lle “ wa s talking badly about her” and “ wa s givin g her bad looks ,” b ut that 12 before the incident, he had no inform ation that Mar celle had ever bullied o r hara ssed 13 Nisha, and that he had seen “ no ind ications whatsoever of any propensityof [N isha] 14 be ing vio le nt o r phy sic al w itha ny body , stu de nt o r sta ff

. ” D ur ing the thr ee y ears she 15 attended A LH S, Nisha had no a ltercations with other student s. Ahner stated i n an 16 af fi da vit that the re w er e no s tud en t- on- stu de nt a lte rc at ion s inthe A L H S pa rk ing lot 17 in the se ve n y ears be tw ee n th e sc hool ’ s in ce pti on i n 200 5 an d the Marc h 1, 201 2 18 as sa ul t.3

1 { 5} Whe n th e as sault too k pl ac e, A L HS ha d writt enpol ic ie s pr ohi bit ing stu de nt 2 be ha vio r inc lud ing be lli ge re nc e, f igh tin g, bul ly ing , ha ras sm en t, a nd c ondu ct in 3 vio la t i o n o f s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l l a w b u t n o w r i t t e n p o l i c i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a tin g to 4 supe rv isi on o f the pa rk in g lo t or to pr ev en tio n of

stu de nt- on- stu de nt a lte rc at ion s. 5 T ra ini ng i s c ondu ct ed

f or sta ff m em be rs , a nd s ta ff

m ee tin gs h el d at the be gin nin g of 6 each school y ear devote signi ficant tim e to basic safety within the school and to such 7 sa fe ty -r el at ed

m atte rs a s C PR

tr ai nin g , f

i r e d r i l l s , m an a g i n g b e h av i o r , r ec ogni zi ng and 8 de -e sc al at ing c onf

lic ts betw ee n stude nts , ha ndl ing al te rc at ion s, an d othe r as pe ct s of 9 stu de nt s upe rv isi on. E ac h y ear, ALHS s ta ff a nd s tud en ts d ev el op a

se t of “ sc hool 10 norm s.” A LH S has also conducted f o rmal training with stud ents to address iss ues 11 su ch as c on fli ctres ol ut io n. 12 { 6} A L H S fa cu lty an d st af f ar e giv ena ssi gnm en ts e ac h y ear, inc lud ing sup er vis ing 13 the student parking lot after school. In addition to the training all staff m emb ers 14 re ce ive at the be gin nin g of the sc hool y ear, the ind ivi dua l a ssi gne d to sup er vis e the 15 pa rk ing lot

r ec ei ve s tr ai nin g c onc er

nin g tra ff ic iss ue s su cha s sp ee d li m its , ke ep ing 16 stu de nts a w ay

f ro m tr af fi c, a nd w he re stu de nts m ay park , a s w el l a s a

bout appl y ing 17 the sa m e pr inc ipl es of c hil d sa fe ty , inc lud ing handling stu de nt- on- stu de nt 18 al te rcat io ns , ou ts id e th e sc ho ol bu il di ng as a re ap pl ie d i ns id e.18 Pl ai nti ff s asse rt tha t Runn el s “ co uld not a cc ount f or he r w he re ab out s” a t the 2 19 tim e of

the inc ide nt; how ev er , at he r de posi tio n, Runne ls r ec ount ed w he re she w en t 20 an d wh atsh e d id be twee n t he en d o f cl as se s an d h er arriv al in th e p ark in g l ot

. 4 1 { 7} Judy Runne ls w as as sig ne d to m oni tor the stu de nt pa rk ing lo t i n 2 01 2. 2 A lth oughshe w as a t A L H S an d onm oni tor ing duty Marc h 1, 201 2, she w as not in the 3 parking lot at the tim e of the a s sault but wa s in the bathroo m . A t the end of classes 4 th ataft ern oo n, Ru nn el s le ft t he cla ss ro om wher e sh e h adbe en tea ch in g, wal ke d d own 5 t h e h a l l , d r o p p e do f

f h e r b o o k s i n a n o t h e r

c l a s s r o o m, s t o p p e dt o u s e t h e b a t h r o o m, 6 an d we nt outs ide thr ough the sc hool ’ s m ai n entr an ce . Whe n she ar ri ve d in the park ing 7 lot, the incident between N isha and Marcell e wa s o v er and there wa s no sig n that 8 anything had happened. It w as not u n t i l she we nt back into the build ing after her 9 m oni tor ing shi ft

e nde d th at

Runne ls h eard

about the f igh t. 2 10 { 8} Ahn er co m

m en ced an in ve st ig at io n a s s oo n a s h e le arn edof t he in ci de nt . He 11 dis ci pli ne d N ish a an d r em ove d he r fr om the ge ne ra l po pul at ionat sc hool by a ssi gni ng 12 he r an“ int er im

a lte rn at ive educ at ion al pla ce m en t. ” N ish a did not gr ad ua te f ro m 13 AL HS . Marcelle m issed three m onth s of school as a result of her inj uries, stopped 14 pa rti ci pa ti ng in da nc e, an d e ve nt ua ll y m ov edto New Jer se y . 15 PROCEDURAL BACKGRO UND 16 { 9} InJul y

201 3 L or i K

reu tz er, as ne xt f

ri en d of he r m ino r ch ild

Marc el le 17 (collectively , P l a i nt i f

f s) , f i l e d su i t a ga i ns t A LH S and others. A gainst ALH S, Plaintiffs5

1 as se rt ane gli ge nc e cl ai m

ba se d ona lle ga tio ns tha t A L H S “ ow ed a duty to Marc el le 2

. . . to use or din ar

y c ar e to kee p the pr em ise s of i ts s ch ool sa fe , inc lud ing the park ing 3 lot ” an d br ea ch ed th at du ty “by f ai lin g to take r ea sona

ble pr ec au tio ns t o ke ep the 4 sc hool sa fe ” an d “by fa ili ng to prov ide ad equa te se curi ty or supe rv isi on i n th e sc hool 5 pa rk ing lot [. ] ” T he co m pla int doe s not ide nti fy a da nge ro us c ondi tio n e xis tin g inthe 6 sc hool park ing lot , or al le ge tha t AL H S kne wor sho uld ha ve kno w n th at

the park ing 7 lot w as uns af

e, or that A L H S kne wor

sho uld ha ve kno w n th at

N ish a ha d apr ope nsi ty 8 fo r vi ol en ce o r po se d a th reat to Marc el le

. 9 { 10} T he c om

pla int al le ge d that A L H S is “ a pr iva te ly ope rate d chart er sc hool ” an d, 10 therefore , “ does not fall w ithin the scope of” the T CA, but that the imm unityaff orded 11 to g ove rn m en t e nti tie s by the T CA is waiv ed by S ec tio ns 4 1- 4- 4 and - 6 “ fo r 1 2 [A L H S ’ s ] n e g l i g e n c e a n d t h a t o f i t s e m p l o y e e s i n f

a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y m a i n t a i n the 13 school p arking lot in a safe conditio n.” In answer ing the com plaint, AL HS stated that 14 it is a chart er sc hool , a s de fi ne d inthe Ch ar te r Sc hool s A ct

( the CS A ), N MS A 197 8, 15 §§ 2 2- 8B -1 to -1 7. 1 ( 1999 , a s a m en de d th ro ugh 2015 ), a nd “ is thus a publ ic sc hool 16 . . . sub

ject t o t he [TCA.] ” ALHS als o ra is edTCA-ba se d a ffi rm at iv e d efen se s. 17 { 11} A L H S m ove d to dis m iss und er Ru le 1- 012( B) (6 ) N MR A , a rg uin g th at ( 1) 18 A L H S is a

c ha rt er sc ho ol under

the CS A a nd, thu s, apub lic sc hool sub j ec t t o su it 19 onl y if the T CAw ai ve s im

m uni ty f or the c la im a sse rt ed a ga ins t i t; (2 ) Pl ai nti ff

s do6

1 not a lle ge a“ pa tte rn ” of

dange ro us b eh av ior

or adange ro us c ondi tio n o n the 2 pr e m i s e s , b u t o n l y a s i n g l e i n s t a n c e o f n e g l i g e n t s up e rv i s i o n , w h i c h d o es notf al l 3 w ith in the S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) im m uni ty wai ve r; and ( 3) the T CAbars P la int if fs ’ 4 cl ai m s f

or pun iti ve da m ag es a nd p re -j udgm en t i nte r e s t

. P l a i n t i f f s opp ose d th e m oti on, 5 a r gu i ng t hatn othi ng i n t he t e xt o f t he T C A o r

C S A i nd i c a t e s t hat“ t he L e gislature 6 intended p rivately

operated schools to be im m une from t ort liability ,” as the T CA 7 doe s no t m en tio n “ ch ar te r sc hool s” a nd the CS A doe s no t m en tio n “ im m uni ty , ” an d 8 tha t A L H S ha d no t sh ow n th at it m et t he defi nit ionof

ac ha rt er sc hool , or

that a 9 charter school is a public school enti tled to TCAim m unity . P laintiffs also m aintained 10 that their argum ent was not that the act of violence a lleged in the com plaint, by itself, 11 re nde re d the A L H S pa rk ing lot uns af e, but that “ a da nge ro us c ondi tio n e xis te d onthe 12 prem ises, nam ely

the absenc e o f ad equate security , supervision, or em ploy ee 13 oversight to prevent stud ent fights.” 14 { 12} Init s r ep ly , A L H S co unt er ed that a ch art er

sc hool c an not

e xis t un le ss i t 1 5 co m p l i e s w i t h t h e C S A ’ s r e qu i r e m e n t s a n dt h a tc h a rt e r s c h o o l s a r e p ub l i c sc hool s 16 subj ec t t o th e T CA

. A s f or P la int if fs ’ c ont en tio n th at

the ir c la im f alls w ith in the 17 Se ct ion41- 4- 6( A ) w ai ve r, A L H S ar gue d th at P la int if fs ’ c la im is tha t the f

igh t w oul d 18 no t ha ve oc cu rred if th ere ha d b een ad eq ua te su pe rv is io n a nd th at , as a m at te r of law, 19 Se ct ion 41- 4- 6( A ) doe s not w ai ve im m uni ty f or c la im s of ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on. T he19 Based on this sam e re asoning , the district court later entered a stipu lated order 3 20 th atpu ni ti ve da m ag es an d p re-ju dg m en t i nt eres t ar e n ot av ai labl e. 7 1 dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d the m oti on to dis m iss in an or de r tha t did not e xpl ai n th e ba sis 2 fo r its de ci sio n. 3 { 13} AL HS subsequ ently m oved for su m

m ary j udgm ent on the iss ue of its status as 4 a publ ic sc hool subj ec t to the T CA

. T he m oti on atta ch ed the c ha rt er a gr ee m en t and 5 doc um en ts e vid en ci ng the N ewMe xic o Pu bli c E duc at ion Co m

m iss ion ’ s re ne w al of 6 A L H S’ s st at e ch ar

te r, not ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d advis ed at the he ar ing on the 7 m otion to dism iss that it could not determ ine whether AL HS wa s subject to the T CA 8 w ith out

r ev ie w ing the c ha rt er

a gr ee m en t. P la int if

fs did not r es pond to thi s m oti on, 9 and the district court granted it, ruling that ALH S “ is a Public Charter School und er 1 0 t h e p ro v i s i o n s o f t h e [ TC A.]” 3 11 { 14} AL HS separately m oved f or summ ary j udgm ent on the ground that, as a m atter 12 of law , S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) did not w ai ve T CA im

m uni ty be ca

use Pl ai nti ff

s’ cl ai m is 13 fo r ne gli ge nt supe rv isi on, an d pre ce de nt hold s that S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) doe s no t w ai ve 14 im m uni ty f or suc h c la im s. A L H S ci te d Enc in ia s v. Whi te ne r La w Fir m, P.A

. , 201 3- 15 N MS C- 045, 310 P. 3d 611, to supp ort i ts arg um en t tha t S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) doe s no t 16 w ai ve im

m uni ty abse nt a da nge ro us co ndi tio n on the pr em ise s, a nd this r equir em en t 17 ca n n o t be m et because “ a single act of student-on-stu dent vio lence does not render 18 the pr em ise s un sa fe , ” an d ther e is n o e vid en ce of apa tte rnof

vio le nc e in the park ing8

1 lot. Plaintiffs also cannot establish waiver under U pto n v . Cl ov is M

uni ci pal Sc hool 2 District , 200 6- N MS C- 040, 140 N

. M. 205 , 141 P

. 3d 1 259, A L H S co nte nde d, be ca use 3 U pto n req ui res m

ul ti pl e sa fet y

po li cy fai lu res , a nd th ere is no su ch ev id en ce h ere. See 4 id. ¶ 21

. 5 { 15} In o p p o s i n g t h e m o t i o n , P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e i r c l a i m i s n o t ba se d on 6 ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on b ut o n A L H S’ s f ai lur e to h av e anappr opr ia te w ri tte n polic y f or 7 student safety

in its parking lot and its failure on the day of the incident to follo w an 8 inform al policy

of having the parking lot m onito red by a staff m em ber. Plaintiffs 9 e mp h a s i z e dt h a tt h e y d o “ n o ta s k t h e [ c ]o u rtt o ap p l y E nc ini as on i ts f

ac ts” a nd 10 ex pli ci tly

dis cl ai m ed

r el ianc e on a

the or y that “ the hig h sc hool pa rk ing lot w as a‘ hot 11 zo ne ’ f

or vio le nc e, a s in E

nc ini as .” Their

argum ent relied principally on the general 12 sta te m en t i n E

nc ini as that “ the f

ac ts o f a ca se w ill sup port a w ai ve r unde r Se ct ion41- 1 3 4 -6 (A ) i f t h ey wo u l ds up p o rt a f i n d i n g o f li ab i l i t y ag ai n s t a p ri v at e p ro p er t y o wn er [, ]” 14 E nc ini as , 2013 -N MS C- 045, ¶ 15, an d the ge ne ra l sta te m en t i n U pto n that the waiver 15 ap pl ie s t o “ sa fet y

po li ci es ne ces sa ry

to pro te ctth e p eo pl e who us e th e b ui ld in g.” 16 U pto n , 200 6- N MS C- 040, ¶ 9. T he y ins ist ed that the ir c la im is dis tin ct

f ro m ne gli ge nt 1 7 s up e rv i s i o n a n d i s t h e t yp e o f c l a i m U pto n re co gni ze d as fa lli ng w ith in S ec tio n 41 -4

- 18 6(A) , “ nam ely , where p u b l i c em ploy ees fa il to have or follow safety policies that 19 ap pl y to th os e who us e a p ub li c b ui ld in g.”9

1 { 16} Pl ai nti ff

s a lso su bm it ted an a ff

idavit of C. Jos huaV ill ine s, a sse rt ing that i t 2 es ta bli she d th at

“ [t ] he standard o f care appl ic ab le to sc hool s is that the y ha ve 3 appropriate wr itten pol icies i n place for student safety ” and that “ AL HS failed to m eet 4 the standard of care i n m u l t i ple way s.” T he aff

idavit declares that Villines is “ an 5 expert in school s afety .” The opin ion attached to the affidavit (Opinion) indicates that 6 he r ev ie w ed

“ cr isi s r es pons e an d sa fe ty pol ic ie s and p ro ce dur es fo r the Ci ty S ch ool s 7 of D ec at ur , G eo rg ia ” an d pr ovi de d tr ai nin g f or facu lt y conc er

nin g “ cr isi s pl an nin g 8 an d re spon se , w orkpl ac e an d sc hool vio le nc e, an d thr ea t a sse ssm en t. ” Bu t ne ith er the 9 O pin ion nor V ill ine s’ re sum e show an y e duc at ionor

tr ai nin g sp ec if

ic to publ ic sc hool 10 sa fe ty , pub lic sc hool park ing lo t s , o r the pr ev en tio n of

stu de nt- on- stu de nt a lte rc at ion s 11 on p ubl ic sc hool pr em ise s. A nd V ill ine s do es not e xpl ai n ho wc re de nti al s su cha s a 12 board c er tif ic at ionin “ Se curi ty Mana ge m en t” by A SI S In te rn at ion al or

de sig na tio n 13 as a n “ In te rn at ion al Cr im e Prev en tion S pe ci al ist ” by the I nte rn at ion al S oc ie ty of 14 Cr im e Pr ev en tio n P ra ct iti one rs , or a ny oth er ed uc at ion or ex pe ri en ce he c ite s, m ak e 15 him com petent to testify

as an expert c oncerning the standard of care for N ewMexico 16 pu bl ic sch oo l p ark in g l ot s re la te d t o s tu de nt -o n- st ud en t v io le nc e. 17 { 17} Vil l i n es al s o o ff er ed n o ex p l an at i o n o r a u th o ri t y s up p o rt i n g his assum ption that 18 w ha t he c ite s a s “ ind

ustry standard s” de fi ne the standard of c ar e N ew Me xic o publi c 19 sc hool s m

ust m ee t t o a ddr es s st

ude nt- on- stu de nt v iol en ce in sc hool park ing lot s. T he18 E xa m ple s in cl ude m at er ia ls tha t a ppe ar to ad dr es s ur

ba n pa rk ing str

uc tur es , 4 19 cr im e pr ev en tio n in

ge ne ra l, w orkpl ac e an d

“ i n t i m at e pa rtne r” vio le nc e, a nd m at er ia ls 20 pr od uc edby the Nati on al Fir e Pro te ct io n As so ci at io n. 10 1 titles of the texts he cites and the nam es of the organizatio n s t o which they are 2 attr ibu te d su gge st tha t the “ ind ustri es ” he r el ie s onbe ar littl e or no r el at ion shi p to 3 publ ic sc hool s. T he O pin iondoe s r ef er to sc hool s and “ ed

uc at ion al se tti ng, ” but

it 4 4 co nta ins no s pe ci fi c dis cu ssi on of spon tane ous stu de nt al te rc at ion s in public sc hool s, 5 onlygeneral statem ents with citations to texts that appear to addres s s u ch issues as 6 sui ci de pr ev en tio n and “ cr isi s pl an s” an d “ em er ge nc y r es pons e pr oc ed

ur es ” fo r 7 cat as tro ph ic em erg en ci es su ch as s ch oo l s ho ot in gs . 8 { 18} Villines nevertheless opined th at A LH S had failed to m eet the standard of care 9 by f ai lin g to : ( 1) “ cr ea te w ri tte n po lic ie s and p ro ce dur es for the sup er vis ionof the 10 pa rk ing lot ”; ( 2) “ ha ve ac ap ab le guard ian pr es en t i n the pa rk ing lot at the tim e of the 11 incident”; (3) “ perform and m aintain a securityvulnerabilityassessm ent which 12 included th e parking lot”; (4) “ provide adequate sup ervision of the personnel 13 assigned to the parking lot, leading to the absence of the assigned faculty m em ber at 14 the ti m e of

the inc id en t” ; (5 ) “ es ta

bli sh a w ri tte n se curi ty

plan th at inc lud ed the 15 pa rk ing lot ”; a nd ( 6) “ es ta bli sh a co m

pr eh en siv e fo rm al thr ea t a sse ssm en t pr oc es s f or 16 the c en tr al iz ed

a rc hiv al , a sse ssm en t, doc um en ta tio n, a nd tra ck ing of th rea te nin g or 17 potenti ally

violent behavior.” Villines does not say that any of these failures c reate d11

1 a da nge ro us c ondi tio n inthe A L H S pa rk ing lot tha t thr ea te ne d th e sa fe ty of tho se w ho 2 used it, or th at im

plem entation of any

m easure he c laim ed is required by his proffere d 3 standard of care would have prevented Nisha’ s assault on Marc el le. Plaintiffs 4 ad duc ed

no o the r ev ide nc e pur

porte dly de m onstratin g the ex ist en ce of a da nge ro us 5 co ndi tio n inthe A L H S pa rk ing lot , nor an y ev ide nc e tha t AL H S kne w or shou ld h av e 6 known that the pa rk ing lot w as unsa fe or that N ish a m igh t a tta ck

Marc el le or

a ny one 7 el se . 8 { 19} N ei the r V ill ine s no r Pl ai nti ff s di sc uss ed

w hat, if an ythi ng, the statut es a nd 9 re gul at ion s go ve rn ing N ewMe xic o publi c sc hool s re qui re fo r the sa fe ope ratio n of 10 stu de nt p ar

kin g lo ts, the f

inanc ia l l im itatio ns w ith in whic h publ ic school s m ust 11 operate, or the im

pact on an y o f the fore goin g on th e proffe red “ indu stry ” standard 12 of care . Nor did Pla intiffs adduce any evidence that AL HS m ade s af et y -rela ted 13 pr om ise s to Marc el le ( or to an y stu de nt) or tha t Marc el le ’ s pa re nts (o r an y pare nts of 14 stu de nts ) re lie d ona ny suc h pr om ise s. 15 { 20} Plaintiffs offe red n o reason why expert testim ony

wa s necessary , or even 16 re le va nt, to re solution o f the le ga l qu es tio n pr es en te d inthe sum m ar y j udgm en t 17 m oti on—

w he the r he r ne gli ge nc e cl ai m a ga ins t A L H S fa lls w ith in the S ec tio n 41 -4

- 18 6( A ) w ai ve r of

im m uni ty

. T he y

sim ply ci te d the lis t of A L H S fa ilure s id en tif ie d by 19 V ill ine s a s m at er ia l f

ac ts b ar ri ng s um m ar y j udgm en t, statin g that the y ha d “ m et the ir12

1 burden of com ing forwar d with proof that AL HS wa s negligent under the prem ises 2 liabilityrule of E

nc ini as , or at least o f dem onstrating that dispu ted issues of m aterial 3 fact e xist and p reclude sum m ary j udgm ent in favor of A LH S. ” 4 { 21} Inr ep ly , A L H S ar gued th at the pol ic ie s pu bli c sc hool s are r equir ed to 5 im ple m en t are not

de te rm in ed

by e xpe rt te sti m ony

but a re pr es cr ibe d by

the P ubl ic 6 Sc hool Co de ( the P SC ), N MS A 197 8, §§ 2 2- 1- 1 to - 33- 4 ( ex ce pt A rt ic le 5A ) (1 967, 7 as am ended throug h 201 7), and Chapters 11 and 1 2 o f th e N ewMexico 8 Adm inistrative Code, which do no t require the m easures V illines said AL HS failed 9 to i m ple m en t, a nd tha t the L eg isl at ur e ex pr es sly

state d inthe T CAthat go ve rn m en t 1 0 en ti t i e s a r e n o t o b l i g a t e d t o d o e v e ryt h i n g t h a t m i g h t b e d o n e f o r t h e b e n e f

i tof the 11 publ ic

. F or

the se a nd o the r re as ons, A L H S sa id, the fa ilure s ci te d by V ill ine s are not 12 m at eri al

. 13 { 22} N oti ng P la int if fs ’ r ep re se nta tio n th at

the y did no t r el y

on an E nc ini as theory 14 of apa tte rnof

vio le nc e, A L H S ar gue d th at Runne ls’ ab se nc e fr om he r as sig ne d po st 15 w as asin gle ins tanc e of ne gli ge nt supe rv isi on fo r w hic h S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) doe s no t 16 w ai ve im

m un it y , rei te ratin g th at

ne gli ge nc e cl ai m s ba se d onstu de nt- on- stu de nt 17 al te rc at ion s ar e tr ea te d a s c la im s f or ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on, f

or w hic h S ec tio n 41 -4

- 18 6( A ) doe s no t w ai ve im m uni ty , a nd tha t, de spi te he r co ntr ar y a sse rt ion s, P la int if

fs ’13

1 cl ai m is tha t A LHS w as ne gli ge nt i n f ai lin g to ha ve a de qua te sup er vis ionin the 2 pa rk in g l ot

. 3 { 23} A L H S furthe r ar gue d th at P la int if fs can not es ta

bli sh tha t the ir

c la im f al ls 4 w ith in S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) ba se d ona n U pto n the ory of fai lu re t o f oll owasa fe ty 5 pol ic y be ca use the re w as no ev id en ce that A L H S fa ile d to im ple m en t or

f oll ow 6 ne ces sary

sa fe ty pol ic ie s, a nd A L H S ha d sa fe ty pol ic ie s f

or stu de nt- on- stu de nt 7 al te rc at ion s and h ad

a ssi gne d asta ff

m em be r to m oni tor

the park ing lot

. E ve n if 8 Runnels’ a

bsence at the tim e of the incident wa s a safe ty policy failure, AL HS argued 9 tha t thi s w oul d not es ta bli sh a w ai ve r be ca

use the de ci sio n in U

pto n w as ba se d on an d 10 req ui res m

ul ti pl e sa fet y

po li cy fai lu res . 11 { 24} The district court g ra nted AL HS ’ s summ ary j udgm ent m otion . I n ruling th at 12 Section 4 1 -4 -6(A ) does not waive T CA im m unityfor P laintiffs’ claim , the c ourt 13 concluded that there wa s no patter n of violence or “ hot zone” in the parking lot that 1 4 A L H S f

a i l e d t o a d d r e s s , a s in E nc ini as ; t o th e ex te nt the c la im is ba se d onthe 15 absence of adequate saf ety policies, AL HS had an unwritten policy of staff- m em

ber 16 supervisio n of the parking lot after school; and m

ultip le safety

policy failures w ere 17 not sho w n, a s U

pto n requires. The court also determ ined that AL HS did no t breach 18 its duty

of c ar e to it s st udent s be ca use “N ewMe xic o lawdoe s no t r equir e tha t a 19 publ ic high scho ol have a wr itten pol icy concerning parking lo t safety .”14

1 { 25} Pl ai nt iff

s ap pe al , arg ui ng th atth e d is tri ctco ur t er redin rul in g t ha t (1 ) ALHS 2 is s ubj ec t to the T CA ; (2 ) A L H S is not re qui re d to ha ve a w ri tte n po lic y c onc er nin g 3 stu de nt sa fe ty in its pa rk ing lot ; (3 ) a Se ct ion 41- 4- 6( A ) w ai ve r ba se d o n U pto n 4 re qui re s m

ult ipl e pol ic y

f ai lur es ; and ( 4) P la int iffs f ai le d to de m onstrate age nui ne 5 di sp ut e o f m at eri al fact ba rri ng su m m ary jud gm en t. 6 STA ND AR

DS OF RE VIEW 7 Sum m ary Judgm ent 8 { 26} W e rev ie w su m

m ary jud gm en t d eci si on s d e n ov o. R ome ro v . Phil ip M orr is 9 Inc. , 201 0- N MS C- 035, ¶ 7, 148 N

. M. 713 , 242 P

. 3d 2 80. A lth oughw e or din ar ily 10 reviewthe whole re cord in the light m ost favorable to the party oppo sing s umm ary 11 jud gm en t, we d o n ot do so wher e p ur e q ue st io ns of l a w a r e at i ss ue . Rutherford v. 12 C have s Cty. , 200 3- N MS C- 010, ¶ 8, 133 N

. M. 756 , 69 P

. 3d 1 199 (s ta tin g th is 1 3 pr o p o s i t i o n i n a d d r e s s i n g t h e qu e s t i o n w h e th e r t h e c l a i m

a s s e rt e di n t h a tc a s e f

e ll 14 wit hi n a di ffer en t TCA wai ve r), abro gat ed on othe r ground s as re co gni

ze d by L uja n 15 v. N. M

. D ep ’t of Transp . , 2015 -N MC A -0 05, ¶¶ 8- 9, 341 P

. 3d 1 ; H

olg uin v. F

ulc o O il 16 Servs. L .L .C. , 201 0- N MC A -0 91, ¶ 7, 149 N

. M. 98, 245 P

. 3d 4 2. 17 { 27} Su m

m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he re “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to a ny 18 m at eri al fact an d .

. . th e m ov in g par ty is en ti tl ed to a jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” 19 Rule 1-056(C) N MRA . I f the m ovant establishes that there are no m aterial f act issues15

1 an d th at

it is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s am atte r of law , “ the bu rdenshi ft s to the non 2 m ovant to de m on st

r at e the existence of specific evidentiary fac ts which would require 3 trial on th e m erits.” R om er o , 201 0- N MS C- 035, ¶ 10 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 4 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). T he non -m ov ant c an not m ee t this bur de n w itha lle ga tio ns o r 5 speculation but m

ust pr esent adm issib le evidence dem onstrating the existence of a 6 ge nui ne iss ue of

f ac t r equir ing tr ia l. Ru le 1- 056( C) , ( E ); R om er o , 201 0- N MS C- 035, 7 ¶ 10. I f the no n- m ovant f ai ls t o do so, “ sum

m ar y j udgm en t, if

appr opr ia te , sha ll be 8 en te redag ai ns t h im .” Ru le 1-0 56 (E). 9 { 28} T o de fe at sum

m ar y j udgm en t, al le ge dly dis put ed fa ct s m ust be m at er ia l, 10 m eanin g th at

the y a re ne ce ssary

to gr ound

the c la im und er the gov er nin g lawa nd w ill 11 affe ct the outcom e of the ca se. R om er o , 201 0- N MS C- 035, ¶ 11; see M

artin v. 12 F r a n k l i n C a pit al C orp. , 20 08 -NMCA- 15 2, ¶ 6 , 14 5 N.M. 1 79 , 19 5 P .3d 24 (“ An 13 iss ue of

f ac t i s ‘ m at er ia l’ if the e xis te nc e (o r non- ex ist en ce ) of the f ac t i s of 14 consequence und er the substantiv e rules of lawgoverning th e p arties’ dispu te.” ); 15 F arm ing ton P oli ce O

ffi ce rs A ss’ n v. Ci tyof

F arm ing ton , 200 6- N MC A -0 77, ¶ 17, 139 16 N.M. 75 0, 1 37 P.3d 12 04 (“ In de te rm in in g whi ch is su es of fact are m at eri al fact s . . . 17 we lo okto th e su bs ta nt iv e la w go ve rn in g t he di sp ut e.”). 18 { 29} “ A disp u t e as to facts that ar e not m aterial does not preclude summ ary 19 j udgm ent[,] ” and sum m ary j udgm ent is proper althoug h disp uted fa ct u al issues16

1 rem ai n. H

ansl er v . B ass , 1987 -N MC A -1 06, ¶ 11, 106 N

. M. 382 , 743 P

. 2d 1 031; see 2 N. M

. R igh t t o C

hoos e/ NA R A L v. J ohns on , 1999 -N MS C- 005, ¶ 24, 126 N

. M. 788 , 975 3 P. 2d 8 41 ( ex pla ini ng tha t di sput ed f ac ts “ do not

pr ec lud e sum

m ar y j udgm en t w ith out 4 a show ing tha t the y

a re m at er ia l” ). S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s a lso pr ope r “ w he n a 5 de fe ndant n eg at es a n e sse nti al e le m en t of the plain tif

f’ s c as e by

de m onstratin g th e 6 absence of an issue of fa ct regar ding that elem ent.” Ma yf i el d Smithson Enters. v. 7 Com- Quip, I

nc. , 1995 -N MS C- 034, ¶ 22, 120 N

. M. 9, 896 P

. 2d 1 156; see Goradia v. 8 H ahn Co

. , 1991 -N MSC- 040, ¶ 18, 111 N .M. 779, 810 P. 2d 798 (“ A c om plete failure 9 of pr oof c onc er nin g an e sse nti al e le m en t of the nonm ovi ng party ’ s ca se ne ce ssari ly 10 re nde rs a ll oth er

f ac ts im m at er ia l. ” (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n 11 om it te d) ). 12 { 30} T he Ru le 1- 056 pr oc ed ur e “ se rv e[ s] aw orthw hil e purp os e in d isp osi ng o f 13 gr ound le ss cl ai m s, or cl ai m s whi ch cannot be pr ove d, w ith out put tin g th e pa rt ie s and 14 the c ourts thr oughthe tr oubl e an d ex pe ns e of f ull blo w n tr ia ls o n th es e 15 claim s.” Goodman v. Brock, 1972 -N MS C- 043, ¶ 11, 83 N. M. 789 , 498 P

. 2d 6 76; see 16 Sc hmid t v. St. J

ose ph’ s H osp. , 198 7- N MC A -0 46, ¶ 4, 105 N

. M. 681 , 736 P

. 2d 1 35 17 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t R

ule 1- 056 “ ex pe dit e[ s] li tig at ion ” by pr ovi din g aproc ed

ur e to 18 “ determ in[e] whether a party has com petent evidence to sup port his p leadings”).17

1 St at ut or y C on st ru ct ion 2 { 31} St atut or y in te rp ret at io n is a pu re qu es ti on of la w s ub ject to de no vo rev ie w. See 3 Tr uong v. A lls tat e In s. Co

. , 2010 -N MS C- 009, ¶ 22, 147 N

. M. 583, 227 P. 3d 73. T his 4 de novo standard applies to the determ ination of whether TC A imm unity bars a tort 5 cl ai m . R uth er

ford , 20 03 -NMSC -0 10 , ¶ 8. 6 { 32} “ Inc onstru ing astatut e, our c ha rge is to de te rm ine a nd g ive e ff ec t t o th e 7 Le g i s lature’ s intent.” M arbo b E ne rg y Corp. v. N. M. Oil C

onservati on Comm’n , 200 9- 8 NMSC -0 13 , ¶ 9, 146 N

. M. 24, 206 P

. 3d 1 35; se e Tr uong , 201 0- N MS C- 009, ¶ 29 9 (“ [I ] t i s th e hig h du ty an d res po ns ibi lity of the j udi ci al br an chof

gov er nm en t t o 10 facilitate and prom ote the [L ] egislature’ s accom plish m ent of its purpose.” (internal 11 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). In conducting this inqu iry , we m ust cons ider 12 th e te xt of th e pr ov is io n( s) at is su e in th e co nt ex t of t he st atut e as a who le

. Se e Sta te 13 v. R iv era , 200 4- N MS C- 001, ¶ 13, 134 N

. M. 768 , 82 P. 3d 9 39 ( sta tin g th at c ourts 14 m ust a na ly ze a“ sta tut e’ s f

unc tio n w ith in a

c om pr eh en siv e le gi sl at iv e sc he m e” a nd 15 m ay no t co ns id er s ub se ct io ns “ in a va cu um ”). 16 DISC US SION 17 As a Mat ter o f La w , ALHS I s a Publi c Sch oo l Su bjec t to the TCA 18 { 33} The T CA prov i d es that “ [a] governm ental entity and any publi c em

ploy ee 19 while ac ting within th e scope o f duty are granted im

m unityfrom

liabilityfor any

tort18

1 ex ce pt a s w ai ve d” by enum er at ed ex ce pti ons. Se ct ion41- 4- 4( A ). P la int if fs c ont en d 2 tha tA L H S i s no te nt i t l e d t o T C A i m m un i t y b e c aus e ap r i vat e l y

o pe r a t e d c ha rter 3 sc ho ol is ne it he r a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty n or a pu bl ic em pl oyee as de fin edin th e TCA. 4 Pl ai nti ff

s’ a rg um ent ap pe ar s to r es t onthe a sse rt ionthat the re is no r ef er en ce to 5 “ ch ar te r sc hool s” in the T CAa nd n o r ef er en ce to “ im

m uni ty ” in the CS A

. F or

it s part , 6 A L H S ci te s st at

uto ry pr ovi sio ns d ef

ini ng “ ch ar

te r sc hool s” as “ publ ic sc hool s” a nd 7 treating th e t wo as having equ ivalent rights and responsib ilities, and reasons that 8 ch ar te r sc hool s are pr ote ct ed

by the T CAj ust

a s pu bli c sc hool s are pr ote ct ed

. 9 { 34} W e not e tha t, a lth oughP la int if fs f ile d anopp osi tio n to the m oti on t o di sm iss 10 in whic h A L H S ar gue d that (1 ) A L H S is a publi c sc hool pr ote ct ed by the T CAa nd 11 (2 ) Se ct ion 41- 4- 6( A ) doe s not wa ive T CA im m uni ty fo r Pl ai nti ff

s’ c la im , the y

did 12 not respon d t o the subs equent summ ary j udgm ent m otion in which A LH S m ade a 13 pr im a fac ie sh owi ng of e nt it le m en t t o ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law t ha t i t i s a TCA14 pr ote ct ed publ ic sc hool by ci tin g law an d atta ch ing the ch ar te r ag re em ent and 15 doc um en ts e vid en ci ng the r en ew al of it s st at e ch ar

te r. I n decli ni ng to r es pond , 16 Pl ai nti ff

s a bdi ca te d th e burde n im

pose d onthe m

by the lawof

sum m ar y j udgm en t. 17 See Ru le 1- 056( E ); R om er o , 2010 -N MS C- 035, ¶ 10. P la int if

fs ’ f ai lur e to r es pond

to 18 the sum

m ar y j udgm en t m otion c oul d a lso be de em ed af ai lur e to p re se rv e the ir 19 ar gum en t he re that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ru lin g, a ft er

r ev ie w ing the doc um en ts19

1 A L H S subm itt ed

in supp ort of

the m oti on, tha t A L H S “ is a [ p] ubl ic [ c] ha rt er

[ s] ch ool 2 under the provis ions o f the [T CA. ] ” N evertheless, we exercise our discretion un der 3 Ru le 12- 321( B) (2 )( a) N MR A to ad dr es s th is le ga l qu es tio n of f ir st i m pr es sio n inthe 4 pu bl ic in te res t. 5 { 35} T o th e ex te nt P la int if fs c ont en d th at

the re is no s ta tut or

y supp ort f

or the 6 propos ition that a “ charter school” is a “ publ ic school” und er New Mexico law, they 7 ar e pla inl y wro ng . Num er ous sta tut es inc lud e “ ch ar te r sc hool s” in the de fi nit ionof 8 “ publ ic schools” and ot herw ise evid ence the L egislature’ s intent to treat c harter 9 sc ho ol s as pu bl ic sch oo ls , exc ep t as ot he rwis e p ro vi de d. 10 { 36} In t h e PS C, the Le gislature defined “ publ ic school” to “ include[] a char ter 11 school.” Sec tion 22-1-2(L ). The Le gislature also m ade clear in Ar ticle 8B of Chapter 1 2 2 2 o f t h e C S A t h a t c h a rt e r s c h o o l s a r e p ub l i c s c h o o l s a n d mu s tc o mp l y w i t h t h e s a me 13 req ui rem en ts ap pl ic ab le to pu bl ic sch oo ls , exc ep t as ot he rwis e p ro vi de d. See, e. g. , 14 § 22 -8 B- 2( A ) (d ef

ini ng “ ch ar

te r sc hool ” as “ a co nve rs ionsc hool or start -u p sc hool 15 au tho ri ze d by

the c ha rt er ing auth or ity

to ope rate as a publ ic sc hool ”) ; § 22- 8B -4 (J ) 16 (stating that “ [a] charter school shall be a nonsectarian, nonreligio us and no n-hom e17 ba se d publi c sc hool ”) ; § 22- 8B -4 (Q ) (r equir ing ch ar te r sc hool s to “ co m

ply w itha ll 18 sta te a nd fe de ra l hea lth an d saf ety re qui re m en ts app lic ab le to publ ic sc hool s” ); § 22

- 19 8B -4 (R) (s ta ti ng , int er ali a , that “ [a] charter

school i s a p ublic schoo l that m ay20

1 co ntr ac t w ithasc hool dis tr ic t or oth er party fo r pr ovi sio n of

f inanc ia l m an ag em en t, 2 fo od s e r vi c e s, tr ans porta tion, facilities, education-related ser vices or other services”) ; 3 § 22 -8 B- 5( D ) (s ta tin g th at “ [a ] c ha rt er sc hool sha ll be a publ ic sc hool a cc re dit ed by 4 the de pa rtm en t and s ha ll be a cc ount ab le to the c ha rt er ing auth or ity f or pur pose s of 5 en su rin g c om

pl ia nc e wit h app li cab le la ws, rul es an d cha rte r pr ov is io ns ”). T he ALHS 6 charter ag re emen t tracks som e of these provisions , stating that AL HS “ shall be a 7 n o n sectarian, non-religiou s and non -hom e-based public schoo l[,] ” re quiring that 8 A L H S co m

ply w ith num er ous sta tut es an d r eg ula tio ns a ppl ic ab le to publ ic sc hool s, 9 and obtain insurance from and com ply with the rules of the Public School Insurance 10 Aut ho rit y . 11 { 37} O th er s ta tu to ry

pro vi si on s m ak e cl ear t ha t ch art er s ch oo ls rece iv e fu ndi ng f ro m 12 the state a nd tha t r ec ei pt o f publ ic f unds requir es c om

pli an ce w ithnum er ous 13 req uire m en ts a

ppl ic ab le to publ ic sc hool s, sc hool board s, a nd s ch ool dis tr ic ts. See 14 ge ne ral lyCh ap te r 22, Arti cl e 8 ( the P ubl ic S ch ool F inanc e A ct ); se e, e . g. , § 22 -8

- 15 2( H ) (d ef

ini ng “ ope ratin g bu dge t” a s “ the a nnua l fi na nc ia l pl anr equir ed to be 16 subm itted by

a local school b o ar d or governing b ody of a state- charter ed charter 17 sc hool ”) ; § 22- 8- 2( L ) (d ef ini ng “ publ ic m one y ” or

“ publ ic f unds ” as “ al l m one y

f ro m 18 publ ic or

pr iva te sourc es r ec ei ve d by asc ho o l dis tr ic t or

state -c ha rt er ed

c ha rt er sc hool 19 or of fi ce r or em

plo y ee of a sc hool dis tr ic t or sta te -c ha rt er ed ch ar te r sc hool fo r publ ic21

1 use ”) ; § 22- 8- 6.1 (req ui rem en ts forch art er s ch oo l b ud ge ts ); § 22 -8 -1 1( B) (“No sc hool 2 dis tr ic t or ch ar

te r sc hool

. . . sha ll m ak e an y e xpe ndi tur e or

inc ur a ny obl iga tio n f

or 3 the e xpe ndi tur e of

pub lic f unds unl es s th at

e xpe ndi tur e or

obl iga tion is m ad e in 4 ac co rd an ce w itha n op er at ing bud ge t a ppr ove d by

the [ publ ic e duc at ion ] 5 de pa rtment.” ). 6 { 38} Many

pr ovi sio ns i n th e New Me xic o A dm ini str at ive Co de a ddr es sin g th e 7 adm ini str at ionof publ ic sc hool s sim ilarl y equa te ch ar te r sc hool s w ithpub lic sc hool s 8 an d m ak e cl ear tha t chart er sc hool s ar e gove rn ed by the sa m e re gul at ion s a

ppl ic ab le 9 to pu bl ic sch oo ls

. See, e. g. , 6. 12. 7. 2 N MA C ( sta tin g th at Ch ap te r 12 r eg ula tio ns 10 govern “ [l] ocal school bo ards and all public scho o l s , i n cl udin g charter schools ”); 11 6. 12. 7. 6 N MA C ( sta tin g ar ule “ es ta bli sh[ ing ] r equir em en ts f or loc al sc hool board s 1 2 an d pub l i c s c h o o l s , i n c l u d i n g c h a rt e r s c h o o l s , t o a d d r e s s b u l l y i n g o f s tu d e n t s by 13 ad op ti ng an d i m

pl em en ti ng po li ci es an d p rev en ti on pr og ram s” ); 6.1 2.7 .7(G) NMAC 14 (d ef ini ng “ publ ic sc hool ” as “ a sc hool as de fi ne d by Se ct ion 22- 1- 2

. . . , in cl udi ng 15 charter

schools ”). 16 { 39} Pl aint iff

s do n ot arg ue that “publ ic sc hool s” a re not “ gove rn m en ta l e nti tie s” 17 protected by the TC A, presum ably because that w ould require them to reconcile that 18 posi tio n w ith the fa ct tha t m an y N ewMe xic o c as es —i nc lud ing U pto n a nd E

nc ini as , 19 upon w hic h she re lie s—h av e tr ea te d publ ic sc hool s, sc hool board s, an d scho ol22

1 di st ric ts as su bjec t to th e TCA. Se e, e . g. , Pe mberton v. Cordova , 198 7- N MC A -0 20, 2 ¶ 4, 105 N

. M. 476, 734 P. 2d 254 (e xpl ai nin g, in a neg lig en ce ca se ag ai nst a sc hool 3 board , that a cl ai m ag ai nst a gove rn m en t ent ity “ m ust fi t wi thi n one o f the e xc ep tio ns 4 to the imm

unitygranted, or it m ay

not be m aintained”). Indeed, P laintiffs assert, “ It 5 is und isput ed that Section 41-4-6(A) applies t o s ch o ol facilities[. ] ” Instead, they 6 co nte nd tha t a

pr iva te ly ope rate d c ha rt er

sc hool is ne ith er a gove rn m en ta l ent ity nor 7 a publ ic e m

plo y ee a s de fi ne d inthe T CA , so i t is not en tit le d to the im m uni ty the 8 TC A a ffords to “ a state-r un schoo l.” W e disagree. 9 { 40} T he T CAde fi ne s “ gove rn m en ta l e nti ty ” as “ the state or a ny loc al pub lic body 10 as de fi ne d inS ubse ct ion s C an d H of [the T CA ’ s de fi nit ion s] se ct ion [. ] ” Se ct ion41- 11 4- 3( B)

. I t de fi ne s “ loc al pub lic body ” as “ all po l i t ical subd ivisions of the state an d 12 the ir a ge nc ie s, ins tr

um en ta lit ie s and i nst itu tio ns, ” Sect ion41- 4- 3( C) ( em pha sis 13 ad de d) , an d de fi ne s “ sta te ” or “ sta te ag en cy ” as “ the state of N ewMe xic o or

a ny of 14 its bra nc he s, ag en ci es , dep art m en ts , bo ard s, i ns tru m en ta li ti es or i ns ti tut ion s. ” Se ct ion 15 41-4-3(H). In additio n to defining “ charter schools ” as “publ ic schools,” the PSC 16 de fi ne s “ sc hool dis tr ic t” a s “ ana re a of land e sta bli she d a s a pol iti ca l su bdi vi sio n of 17 the state for the adm inistration of publ ic sc hool s , ” Se ct ion22 -1 -2 (R) ( em pha sis 18 ad de d) , a nd d ef

ine s “publ ic sc hool ” as “ tha t pa rt of a sc ho oldis tri ct tha t .

. . is 19 discernible as a buildin g or group of bu ildin gs gene ra l l y recognized as either an23

1 el em en tary , m idd le , j uni or hig h or h ig h scho ol o r an y c om bin at ionof

tho se a nd 2 inc lud es a c hart er

sc hool [. ] ” Se ction 22 -1-2(L ) (e m phases added). 3 { 41} T he se pr ovi sio ns, take n to ge the r, e sta bli sh tha t a

“ ch ar te r sc hool ” is a

“ publ ic 4 sc hool ” t h a to p e r a t e s a s p a rto f a“ p o l i t i c a l s ub d i v i s i o n [ ] o f t h e s t a t e ” a n d , a s s u ch , 5 is a “ go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty” with in th e mea n i n g of Sect io ns 41 -4 -3 (B) a nd (C). A 6 charter school also falls w ithin the TC A’ s definition o f “ governm ental entity ” as 7 i n cl u d ing state “ instrum entalities” and “ instit ution s.” S ection 41-4-3(B), (H ). 8 N u m e r o u s s t a tu t o ry

p r o v i s i o n s , i n c l u d i n g m a n y n o tc i t e dh e r e , r e f

l e c tthe 9 int er re la tio nshi p be tw ee n c ha rt er sc hool s and p ubl ic sc hool s, sc hool board s, a nd 10 sc hool dis tr ic ts, a nd the L eg isl at ur e’ s in te nt t o t reat ch ar te r sc hool s a s no le ss 11 go ve rn m en ta l en ti ti es th an are p ub li c sc ho ol s u nd er New Me xi co law. 12 { 42} W e s e e n o e vi de nc e t hatt he L e gi sl a tur e , i n de f i ni ng “ c hart e r

s c ho ol s” as 1 3 “ p ub l i c s c h o o l s , ” i n t e n d e dt h a tt h i s s h o u l db e s o f o r s o m e p u r p o s e s a n dn o to the rs , 14 and Plaintiffs offer

no reason that would sup port such an interpretation. This Court 15 “ pr es um es that the L eg isl at ur e is aw ar e of ex ist ing ca se lawa nd a ct s w ithkno w le dge 16 of i t .” State v. C

havez , 200 8- N MS C- 001, ¶ 21, 143 N

. M. 205 , 174 P

. 3d 9 88. T he 17 TCA ha d b een in pl ace fo r so m e twen ty y ears whe n th e Leg is la tu re en act edth e CSA. 18 If the L egislature had inten d ed t h at charter schools and publ ic schools b e treated 19 differe ntly

for som e purposes, includin g und er the TC A, i t wou ld have m ade that24

1 cl ear. W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s rul ing tha t AL H S is a publi c sc hool a nd, a s su ch , 2 a g o v er n m en t al en t i t y s ub je ct t o s u i t o n l y as p er m i t t ed b y an ex ce p t i o n t o t h e T CA ’s 3 ge ne ral rul e o f imm

un it y . 4 A s a M at te r of

La w , S ec ti on 41- 4- 6( A ) D oe s N ot Wa ive TC A Im m un it y f or 5 Plaintif

fs’ C laim Against A LHS 6 1. The R elevant TC A F ram ew ork 7 { 43} The T CA pr o v i d es that “ [a] governm ental entity and any publi c em

ploy ee 8 while ac ting within the scope of dutyare granted im m unityfrom

liabilityfor any

tort 9 ex ce pt a s w ai ve d” by

e num er at ed

e xc ep tio ns. S ec tio n 41 -4 -4 (A ). I n e na ct ing the 1 0 TC A, t h e L eg i s l at u re re i n s t at ed t h e g en er al ru l e o f g o v er n m en t al i m m u n i t y, abolished 11 as am atte r of

the c om m on l awin H

ic ks v. St ate , 1975-NMS C-056, ¶ 15, 88 N. M. 12 58 8, 5 44 P.2d 11 53 , supe rse de d bysta tut e as s tat ed in U pto n , 2006 -N MS C- 040, ¶ 8, 13 an d de cl ar ed it to be “ the publ ic pol ic y of N ew Me xic o th at gov er nm en ta l e nti tie s and 14 publ ic e m

plo y ee s sh al l on ly

be li ab le w ith in the li m itatio ns o f the [TCA] and in 15 ac co rd an ce w iththe pr inc ipl es e sta bli she d inthat a ct

. ” Se ct ion41- 4- 2( A ). T he 16 L eg isl at

ur e sta te d it s r ec ogni tio n of the unf ai rn es s r es ult ing f

ro m “ str ic t a ppl ic at ion 17 of the doc tr ine of

sov er ei gn i m

m un it y ” an d a lso it s in te nti on tha t the “ gove rn m en t 18 shou ld not have the duty to do everythi n g t h at m i g h t be done” because “ the area 1 9 w ith in wh i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n th a s t h e p o w e r

t o a c tf o r t h e p ub l i c g o o di s a l m ost25

1 without lim it[.] ” Id

. Und er t he TCA, “ th e ru le is imm un it y ; wai ve r is th e ex cep ti on .” 2 U pto n , 2006-NMS C-040, ¶ 29 (Minzner, J., dissenti ng). 3 { 44} Where T CA im

m unityis waive d b y a n enum erate d exception to the general 4 rule of im

m unity , lia b i lity

is to be determ ined “ based upo n the traditional to rt 5 co nc ep ts o f duty

a nd the reaso nably

pr ude nt p er son’ s st an da rd of c ar e in the 6 perform ance of that duty [, ] ” provided that “ [d] eterm ination of the st an d ar d of car e 7 re q u ired in any

particular instance should b e m ade w ith the kn owledge that eac h 8 gov e r nm e nt a l e nt i ty

has financial lim itations within which it m ust exercise authorized 9 pow er a nd d isc re tio n inde te rm ini ng the ex te nt and n at ur e of it s a ct ivi tie s. ” Se ct ion 10 41- 4- 2( B) ; se e als o T hom pson v . Ci tyof A lbu que rque , ___- NMSC -___, ¶ ¶ 11, 17, 11 ___ P. 3d _

__ (N o. 35, 974, Jun e 19, 201 7) ( dis cu ssi ng TCA wa ive r as a n is sue 12 determ ined before consideration of the elem ents of the claim based on traditional tort 13 co nc ep ts)

. T he T CA “ in no w ay im pose s a str ic t lia

bil ity fo r inj ur ie s u pon 14 governm ental entities or publ ic em ploy ees. ” Se ction 41 -4-2(B)

. 15 2. TC A -S pe ci fi c P ri nc ip le s of S ta tu to ry In te rp re ta ti on 16 { 45} O ur

ta sk i n de te rm ini ng w he the r a T CA w ai ve r ap pli es is to asc er ta in and g ive 17 effe ct to the Le gislature’ s intent and p urpose usin g the princip l es of statutory 18 co ns tru ct io n o ut li ne d a b ov e. See Tr uong , 201 0- N MS C- 009, ¶ 29; M arbo b E ne rgy 19 Co rp. , 2 0 0 9 -N M SC -0 1 3 , ¶ 9 . I n d o i n g d o , we al s o m u s tfo l l o w o u r S up re m e C o u rt ’s26

1 ins tr uc tio n that “ [s ] ta tut or

y pr ovi sio ns pur

portin g to w ai ve gov er

nm en ta l i m

m uni ty 2 are strictly

construed.” R uth er

ford , 20 03 -NMSC -0 10 , ¶ 11

. 3 { 46} The policy

stat ements in Section 41-4-2(A) m ake clear that, as Plaintiffs 4 them selves contend, the Le gislature did n ot intend g ov e r nm e nt and p r i vate tortfeasors 5 to rece iv e id en ti cal tre at m en t. See Marrujo v. N. M. St ate Highway Transp. De p’t , 6 1994 -N MS C

- 11 6, ¶

2 4, 1 18 N

. M

. 7 53, 887 P.2d 747 (explainin g that “ [g] overnm ental 7 ent i tie s are dif

fe re nt f ro m pr iva te part ie s, ” Se ct ion41- 4- 2( A ) de m onstrate s th at “ [t ] he 8 [L ] egislature never intended gov ernm ent and private tortfeasors to rec eive identical 9 tr ea tm en t[ , ] ” an d “ [t ] he r igh t t o su e the gov er nm en t i s astatut ory rig ht and the 10 [L]egi sl atur e can reas on ab ly rest ric t t h a t r i g h t ”); Ru th L. Kovn at , To rts : Sov er ei gn 11 & Gove rn men ta l Immu ni ty in N.M. , 6 N. M. L . R ev. 249, 261-62 (1976) (stating that 12 “ ex am ina tio n of

the [ T CA ’ s] st at uto ry

str uc tur e co m

pe ls the c onc lus ionthat the 13 pur pose of the a ct is to tre at the S ta te a nd o the r gove rn m en ta l e nti tie s di ff er en tly f ro m 14 indiv iduals because to do otherwise thre atens the publ ic trea suries too m uch”). 15 { 47} A de te rm ina tio n th at the T CA doe s no t w ai ve im m uni ty f or ane gli ge nc e cl ai m 16 as se rt ed

a ga ins t a gov er nm en ta l de fe ndant obvi at es the ne ed to ad dr es s th e el em en ts 17 of ne gl ig en ce. See Arm ijo v

. De p’t of H ealth & Env’ t , 198 9- N MC A -0 43, ¶ 5, 108 18 N

. M. 616 , 775 P

. 2d 1 333 (“ [W ] e ne ed not r ea chthe iss ue of

duty unl es s w e de te rm ine 19 that [the] plaintiff’ s cause of action is one for which im m unity has b ee n wa ived.”);27

1 se e als o C

obos v . D oña A na Cty

. H

ous. A uth

. , 199 8- N MS C- 049, ¶ 19, 126 N

. M. 418 , 2 970 P. 2d 1143 (“ [I ] t is not en ough fo r the pub lic e m plo y ee s to ha ve aduty

—tha t du ty 3 m ust fit within the legisl ative intent of the [TC A] wa iver in order to state a 4 m er ito ri ous cl ai m

f or r el ie f. ”) ; E

spi noza v . T

ow n of T aos , 1995 -N MS C- 070, ¶

14, 120 5 N

. M. 680 , 905 P

. 2d 7 18 ( sta tin g th at e ve n if the de fe ndant “ ar gua

bly ha d a duty

in 6 this case, ther e can be no liability for any breach of that duty because im m unityhas 7 not been wa ived”); P em be rto n , 1987 -N MCA -020, ¶¶ 2-7 (rej ecting the argum ent that 8 a stude nt a l l e ge dl y str

uc k a nd i nj ur e d by a no t he r st ud e nt st a t e d a c l a i m f

or which 9 Se ct ion41- 4- 6( A ) w ai ve s asc hool board ’ s im m uni ty ba se d onastatut or

y obl iga tio n 10 to s upe rv ise stu de nts a nd ex pla ini ng tha t a cl ai m ag ai nst a gove rn m en t e nti ty “ m ust 11 fi t w ith in o ne of

the e xc ep tio ns to the im m uni ty gr an te d, or

it m ay not be 12 m ai nt ai ne d” ). 13 { 48} Re la te dly , asho w ing that the f ac ts s uppo rt ane gli ge nc e cl ai m doe s no t 14 ne ces sa ril y

est ab li sh a waiv er o f TCA imm un it y . Se e M

ill iron v. Ct

y. of S an J uan , 15 2016 -N MC A -0 96, ¶

2, 384 P.3 d 1089 ( co nc lud ing that “ [the a ] ppe llant’ s w el l16 pleaded facts, while potentially sufficie n t t o s uppo rt a c laim of negligence, are 17 ins uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh a wa ive r of the gove rn m en ta l im m uni ty gr an te d by

S ec tio n 18 41- 4- 4( A )” a nd tha t “ [b ] ec au se [ the a ] ppe lle es a re im m une f ro m sui t un de r the f

ac ts 19 of the case, [the a]ppellant h as n ot stated a claim upon which re lief m ay

be granted”);28

1 Young v. V

an D uy ne , 200 4- N MC A -074 , ¶ 33, 1 35 N

. M. 695 , 92 P

. 3d 1 269 2 (e xpl ai nin g th at

“ ne gli ge nc e ar isi ng out of the vio la tio n of a statut or y duty doe s no t 3 ch an ge the i m

m uni ty gr an te d un de r the [ T CA ] ”) ; M

. D

. R

. v . Sta te e

x re l. H um an 4 Ser vs . De

p ’t , 1 9 9 2

- N M C A

- 0 8 2 , ¶ 3 , 1 1 4 N

. M

. 1 8 7 , 8 3 6 P

. 2 d1 0 6 ( s t a t i n g t h a t“ it 5 does not necessarily

follow” f

rom the fac t that the depar t m en t em ploy ees “ have a 6 responsib ility

to oversee and s up e r

vise the sa fety

and well- being of child ren entrusted 7 to” it that “ the [d] epartm ent m ay be held liable under the [T CA] for a breach of that 8 duty ” because the T CA “ declare s that gov ernm en t al en tities and pu blic em ploy ees 9 sha ll onl y

be li ab le w ith in the lim itatio ns of its pr ovi sio ns” a nd “ [t ] he r igh t t o su e an d 10 re co ve r is the re fo re spe ci fi ca lly li m ite d to the r igh ts, pr oc ed ur es , li m itatio ns, a nd 11 co nd it io ns of t he [TCA]” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 12 3. A s a M at te r of La w , S ec ti on 41- 4- 6( A ) D oes Not Wa ive Im m un it y f or 13 Plaintif

fs’ C laim Against A LHS 14 { 49} Co nsi stent w iththe pr inc ipl es dis cu sse d a bove , the part ie s’ a rg um en ts f oc us 15 on the que sti on w he the r Pl ai nti ff s’ c la im ag ai ns t AL H S fa lls w ith in S ec tio n 41 -4

- 16 6(A) , which waives sovereign im m unity“ for dam ag es resulting from bodil y injury 17

. . . c au se d by

the ne gli ge nc e of

pub lic e m

plo y ee s whi le a ct ing w ith in the sc ope of 1 8 t h e i r du t i e s i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o r mai n t e n a n c e o f

a n y b u i l d i n g , p ub l i c p a rk , mac h i n e ry, 19 equip m en t or fur

nis hin gs. ” Fo r the re as ons se t forth bel ow , w e hold tha t i t do es not 20 and affir

m the district court’ s entry

of sum m ary j udgm ent in favor of A LH S.29

1 a. Plaintif

fs’ C laimI s f

orN e gl i ge n tS u p e r vi si on , a S ingle Stu dent -on-S tud ent 2 Assault, for Whic h Se ction 41-4-6(A ) D oes Not Waive Im m unity 3 { 50} Our S uprem e Cou rt h as stated that it interprets Section 41-4-6(A) broadly , an 4 adm oni tio n th at

appe ar s to ha ve or igi na te d w ith ca se s hol din g th at the w ai ve r is n ot 5 lim ited to a “ phy sical defec t” on the prem ises but app lies “ ‘ wher e due to the alleged 6 ne gli ge nc e of

pub lic e m

plo y ee s an in

j ur y a ri se s f ro m a n u ns afe, dange ro us, or 7 defective conditi on on property owned and operated by

the governm ent[.] ’ ” Bober 8 v. N. M

. Sta te F air , 1991 -N MS C- 031, ¶¶ 26- 27, 111 N

. M. 644, 808 P. 2d 6 14 ( quot ing 9 Ca st il lo v. Cty . of

Sa nt a Fe , 198 8- N MS C- 037, ¶ 3, 107 N

. M. 204 , 755 P

. 2d 4 8) ; see 10 Archibeque v. Moya , 199 3- N MS C- 079, ¶ 9, 116 N

. M. 616, 866 P. 2d 344 (“ A c ar ef ul 11 reading of Bober

a nd Ca sti llo reveals that both cases rej ected reading Section 41-4-6 12 to lim it waiver

of im m unityto those instances w here inj ury occurre d due to a phy sical 13 de fe ct in a

bui ldi ng. ”) ; se e also Ca lla wa y v. N. M

. D ep ’t of Co rr. , 199 4- N MC A -0 49, 14 ¶ 17, 117 N

. M. 637, 875 P. 2d 393 (c iti ng ca se s re j ec tin g a “ re str ic tiv e int er pr et at ion ” 15 lim iting Sec tion 4 1-4-6(A) wa iver to phy sical defec ts on th e prem ises and an 16 interpretation that w ould apply “ m ore re strictively

based solely

on a party ’ s status as 17 a p ris on in m at e”). 18 { 51} Cauti o n i s w arr a n t e d g i v e n t h a t e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e T C A ’ s g e n e r a l r u l e of 19 imm un it y are s tri ct ly con st ru ed

. R uth er ford , 2003 -N MS C- 010, ¶ 11. E ve n a ssu m ing 20 that the intend ed purpose of TCAwa ivers is rem edial, judicial directives to rea d TCA30

1 wa iver provision s broadly cannot be understoo d to autho rize or require an 2 in te rp ret at io n t ha t ex ceed s t he bou nda ri es of leg is la ti ve in te nt

. M.D.R. , 19 92 -NMCA3 082, ¶¶ 12-13 (stating that courts sh ould “ read the r elevant statutes in a m anner that 4 fa ci lit at es the ir

ope ratio n and the a ch ie ve m en t of t he ir goa ls” ; “ w e ha ve to fi nd the 5 [L ] egislature’ s goals in the words the [L ] egislature chose or in the natural inference s 6 fro m tho se w or ds” ; the T CAw ai ve r pr ovi sio ns i nvok ed by the pla int if

fs did not 7 w ai ve im

m uni ty f or the c la im a lle ge d; “ it is not the f

unc tio n of

the c ourt of

appe al s 8 to le gis la te ”; a nd “ [c ] or re ct ionof w ha te ve r ine qui ty

e xis ts i n su chasit

ua tio n” is fo r 9 th e Leg is la tu re (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 10 { 52} In an y

ev en t, E nc ini as , our Su

pr em e Co urt’ s m ost re ce nt de ci sio n a ddr es sin g 11 the iss ue , af

fi rm s that Se ct ion 41- 4- 6( A ), br oa dly int er pr et ed , w ai ve s im

m uni ty onl y 12 w he re the a lle ge d ne gli ge nc e create s “ anuns af e, dange ro us, or

de fe ct ive c ondi tio n 13 o n p ro p erty

owned and operated by

the governm ent.” E

nc ini as , 201 3- N MS C- 045, 14 ¶ 10 ( quot ing Ca sti llo , 198 8- N MS C- 037, ¶ 3) ; se e als o U

pto n , 2006-NMS C-040, ¶ 8 15 (“ For the wa i v er to app ly , the negligent ‘ operation or m aintenance’ m ust create a 16 da nge ro us c ondi tio n th at threate ns th e gen er al pub lic or ac la ss o f use rs of

the 17 build ing.”). 18 { 53} O ur

S upr em e Co urt al so e xpl ai ne d in E nc ini as that it has “ m ade it clear that 19 there ar e lim its to th e wa iver of im m unity in S ection 41-4-6(A)[ ,] ” E nc ini as , 201 3-31

1 NMS C-045, ¶ 12, and that these lim its includ e the following: (1) “ there is no waiver 2 of im m uni ty und er S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) fo r ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on” ; ( 2) “ [t ] he re c anbe 3 no w ai ve r unde r Se ct ion41- 4- 6( A ) w ith out a da nge ro us c ondi tio n onthe pr em ise s, 4 and a single act of student-on-stud ent violence does no t render the pre m ises unsafe”; 5 an d(3 ) “on e s tu d en t ’s b at t er y o f a n o t h e r w o u l dn o tg en er al l y wa i v e a s ch o o l ’s 6 im m unity und e r S e c t i on 41-4-6(A) [. ] ” E

nc ini as , 201 3- N MS C- 045, ¶ ¶ 12- 14; se e als o 7 U pton , 200 6- N MS C- 040, ¶ 16 ( sta tin g th at , f

or the S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) w ai ve r to 8 ap ply , “ the cl ai m cannot be ba se d sol el y on n eg lig en t su pe rv isi on” ); E

spi noza , 199 5- 9 NMSC -0 70 , ¶¶ 7, 1 4 (r eject in g a rg um en t t ha t ab se nc e o f su p e r v i si on at a to wn 10 play ground constitu tes an “ unsafe , dangerous, or defec tive condit ion” for which 11 Section 41-4-6(A) wa ives im m unity ; hold ing that the inadequate sup ervision alleged 12 “ did no t create the unsafe condition s” and that the play ground itself “ wa s a safe area 13 fo r ch ildre n” a nd “ w as not ac ondi tio n r equir ing sup er vis ion ”) ; L e i th e a d v . C ity of 14 Sa nt a Fe , 1997 -N MC A -0 41, ¶ 8, 123 N

. M. 353 , 940 P

. 2d 4 59 ( ag re ei ng tha t “ a cl ai m 15 of ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on, stand ing a lon e, is not suf fi ci en t t o br ing ac au se of a ct ion 16 w ith in the w ai ve r of im m uni ty c re at ed by S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 ”) ; P em be rto n , 1987- 17 NMC A- 020, ¶¶ 2-7 ( hold ing th at Sec tion 4 1-4-6(A) does not waive im m unityfor a 18 cl ai m br ough t by a stud en t all eg ed ly str uc k and inj ur ed by an oth er stu de nt a ga ins t a 19 school b oard based on a theory of negligent su pervision ).32

1 { 54} Pl ai nti ff

s c on te nd that c as es hol din g th at S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) doe s no t w ai ve 2 im m uni ty f or c la im s of ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on d o no t a ppl y be ca use the y do n ot a lle ge 3 negligent supervis i o n . The re cord is to the contrary . T heir com plaint alleges that 4 A L H S br ea ch ed

it s du ty “ by f ai lin g to ta ke re as ona

ble pr ec au tio ns to ke ep the sc hool 5 sa fe ” an d “by

f ai lin g to pr ovi de ad equa te se curi ty or supe rv isi on in the sc hool park ing 6 lot.” In r espond ing to AL HS ’ s argum ent below (in its Rule 1 -012(B)(6) m otion ) that 7 Pl ai nti ff

s’ cl ai m is fo r a sin gle ins tanc e of ne gli ge nt supe rv isi on, w hic h doe s no t f al l 8 w it hi n Se ct ion41- 4- 6( A ), P la int if fs sa id the ir

a rg um en t w as that “ a da nge ro us 9 c o n d i t i o n e x i s t e do n t h e p r e mi s e s , n a me l y th e ab s e n c e o f a d e qu a t e s e c u r i t y, 10 supe rv isi on, or

e m plo y ee ove rs ight to prev en t st ude nt f igh ts. ” Inr es pond ing to 11 AL HS ’ s sim ilar ar gum ent on summ ary j udgm ent, Plaintiffs said their claim is based 1 2 on A L H S ’ s f

a i l u r e t o h a v e a n ap p r o p r i a t e w r i t t e n p o l i c y f o r s tu d e n t s a f

e t y i n it s 13 pa rk ing lot

a nd i ts f ai lur e on the da y of the inc ide nt t o f oll owit s in fo rm al pol ic y

of 14 ha vi ng th e p ark in g l ot m on it or edby a sta ff m em be r. 15 { 55} T o th e ex te nt P la int if fs cont en d th at

S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) w ai ve s im m uni ty f or 16 the ir c la im be ca use the y do n ot r el y

onl y on a the or y of ne gli ge nt s upervis ion , but 17 al so o n af

ai lur e to h av e or

f oll owsa fe typol ic ie s f

or park ing lot

use rs , w e ar e not 18 pe rs ua de d that th is s uf fi ce s to dis tin gui sh the ir c la im f ro m one f or ne gli ge nt 19 supe rv isi on. F our

of the six f ai lur es ide nti fi ed

by V ill ine s r el at e to “ supe rv isi on” a nd33

1 “ se curi ty ” of

the park ing lot

. O n a

ppe al , m or eo ve r, P la int if fs r el y sol el y on tw o of 2 tho se pur

porte d f ai lur es —“ to c re at e w ri tte n po lic ie s and p ro cedu res f or the 3 supervisio n of the parking lot ” and “ to establish a w ritten security plan that inclu ded 4 the park ing lot

a t the hig h scho ol[ , ] ”— ab an doni ng all oth er s as a po te nti al ba sis f or 5 rev ers al

. See M

ason Fam ily Tr . v. D eV

aney , 200 9- N MC A -0 48, ¶ 6, 146 N

. M. 199 , 6 207 P. 3d 1 176 (d et er

m ini ng tha t a

party a ba ndon ed a rg um en ts m ad e be lowbut not 7 in ap pe ll at e b rie fs ). 8 { 56} Plain tiff

s’ a tte m pt t o r ec as t the ir

c la im a s on e fo r ne gli ge nt f

ai lur e to h av e 9 w ri tte n sa fe ty

pol ic ie s c onc er

nin g “ supe rv isi on” a nd “ se curi ty ” in the park ing lot is 10 una va ili ng. T he y

c ite no s ta tut e, r eg ula tio n, or c as e re qui ri ng N ewMe xic o publi c 11 schools t o have su c h w r i t t e n po l i c i e s. A nd t he y of f e r e d no e vi de nc e t hat l a c k of a 1 2 w ri t t e n p o l i c y ( a s d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e u n w r i t t e n p o l i c y o f s t a f f s up e rv i s i o n o f

the 13 pa rk ing lot

A L H S undi sput ed ly

ha d) it se lf

c re at ed a dan ge ro us c ondi tio n inthe 1 4 pa rk ing l o t

. Wh i l e P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t u n w r i t t e n p o l i c i e s c a n b e u n d e rm i n e dby 15 “ ad hoc d ec i s i o n s ,” they offer no evidence or argum ent dem onstrating that wr itten 16 policies could not sim ilarly be underm ined. Regar dless, the point was not argued 17 be low , a nd w e de cl ine to co nsi de r it. See, e. g. , Na nce v. L. J. Dolloff Assocs., Inc. , 18 2006 -N MC A -0 12, ¶ 12, 138 N

. M. 851, 126 P. 3d 1215 (“ [W ] e re view the cas e 19 litigated belo w, not the case that is fleshed out for the first tim e on a ppeal.” ( internal34

1 quot at ion m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; W oolwine v. Furr’s, Inc. , 198 7- N MC A -1 33, 2 ¶ 20, 106 N

. M. 492 , 745 P

. 2d 7 17 (“ To pr es er ve a n is sue f

or r ev ie won a

ppe al , it 3 mu s tap p e a r

t h a t[ t h e ] ap p e l l a n tf

a i r l y i n v o k e d ar

u l i n g o f t h e t r i a l c o u rto n t h e s a me 4 ground s argued in the appellate court.”) . P laintiffs’ assertion that Villines explained 5 “ w hy aw ri tte n, r athe r than in fo rm al , pol ic y is es se nti al to est ab lis hin g a sa fe sc hool 6 en vi ro nm en t[ , ] ” w as not m ad e be lowe ith er . Mo re ove r, the y ide nti fy no s pe ci fi c 7 sta te m en t bu t dir ec t us to the en tir ety of the V ill ine s af fi da vit an d O pin ion

. “ W e w ill 8 not search the r ecord for facts, argum ents, and rulings in o rder to support generalized 9 argum ents.” M

use v . M use , 200 9- N MC A -0 03, ¶

72, 145 N

. M. 451 , 200 P

. 3d 1 04. 10 { 57} W e co nc lud e tha t Pl ai nt if fs ’ c la im is fo r ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on— a sin gle 11 student -on-student alterc ation—which does no t fall w ithin Sec tion 4 1-4 -6 (A), as 12 b r oa dl y

co ns tru edby our

Supr em e Co ur t. Se e E

nc ini as , 2 0 1 3

- N M S C

- 0 4 5 , ¶ 12 13 (“ [T ] he re is no w ai ve r of im m uni ty und er S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) fo r ne gli ge nt 14 supe rv isi on. ”)

. E ve n assu m ing the cl ai m is n ot s ole ly one f or ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on, 15 it st il l d oe s n ot fal l wi th in th e wai ve r, as we ex pl ai n b el ow. 16 b. En ci

nias Does N ot Re quire the Conc lusion That Sect ion 41-4-6(A) Waives 17 TC A Im m un it y f or P lai nt if

fs ’ C lai m 18 { 58} In E

nc ini as , the pla int if

f co nte nde d tha t Se ct ion 41- 4- 6( A ) w ai ve d im m uni ty 19 for his negligence claim against a high scho ol and school district arising from injuries 20 he sustained when another stud ent attacked him in an area wher e students p atronized35

1 food vend ors, w hich an assistant principal descr ibed in an af fidavit as a “ hot zone” 2 fo r st ud en t v io le nc e. E nc ini as , 201 3- N MS C- 045, ¶ ¶ 2, 13. O ur Su

pr em e Co urt he ld 3 that the governm ent can be liable for the violent acts of a third party under a prem ises 4 lia bil ity the or y “ if the gove rn m en t r ea sona bly sho uld ha ve dis co ve re d and c oul d have 5 pr ev en te d th e inc ide nt” an d th at the pla int if

f ha d e sta

bli she d age nui ne iss ue of 6 m aterial f

act as to the existence of a dangerous condition on school prem ises based 7 on th e as si st an t p rin ci pa l’s “ ho t zo ne ” st at em en t. Id

. ¶ ¶ 17- 18. 8 { 59} Inr ea ch ing it s de ci sio n in E nc ini as , the Co urt r e- af

fi rm ed it s lo ngst an din g 9 int er pr et at ionof

S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A ) tha t “ [t ] he re can be no w ai ve r unde r Se ct ion41- 4- 10 6( A ) w ith out a dan ge ro us c ondi tio n onthe pr em ise s, a nd a sin gle a ct

of stu de nt- on11 student violence does no t render the pre m ises unsafe.” E nc ini as , 201 3- N MS C- 045, 12 ¶ 13. T he Co urt di sti ngui she d P em be rto n , in which the plaintiff claim ed to have been 13 str uc k an d inj ur ed

by a nothe r stu de nt, not ing that “ [t ] he pla int if f in P em be rto n 14 specifically

alleged negligent su pervision but did not alle g e t h at the school was 15 ne gli ge nt i n f

ai lin g to e xe rci se r ea sona ble c ar e to d isc ove r an d pr ev en t dange ro us 16 co ndi tio ns c au se d by

pe opl e on i ts p re m ise s” a nd d id n ot a lle ge “ a br oa de r pa tte rnof 17 vio le nc e at th e sc ho ol, or a ny f ac ts t o su gge st tha t the sc hool , in the e xe rc ise of 18 or din ar

y c ar e, c oul d have dis co ve re d th at the vio le nc e w as about to oc cur an d th at

the 19 school cou ld have protected the stud ent from injury .” E

nc ini as , 201 3- N MS C- 045,36

1 ¶ 13 ( ci tin g P em be rto n , 198 7- N MC A -0 20, ¶ 2)

. “ Whil e one stu de nt’ s ba tte ry of 2 an ot he r wou ld no t ge ne ral ly wai ve a sc ho ol ’s imm un it y un de r Sec ti on 41 -4 -6 (A), a 3 sc hool ’ s f

ai lur e to a ddr es s apa tte rnof stu de nt v iol en ce in a pa rt ic ular ar ea m igh t 4 create an unsafe condition o n the prem ises.” E nc ini as , 20 13 -NMSC -0 45 , ¶ 14

. 5 { 60} E

nc ini as thu s di sti ngui she d a ne gli ge nt supe rv isi on ca se , as in a sin gle stu de nt6 on- stu de nt a lte rc at ion , f ro m ac as e in which the re is ev ide nc e of apr ior his tor y of 7 vio le nc e tha t the de fe ndant, in the ex er ci se of or din ar y care , r ea sona

bly c oul d have 8 di sc ov ered an d acte d up on to pr ev en t in jury to th e p la in ti ff. Se e id. ¶ ¶ 16- 18 ( ci tin g 9 ca se s f or “ the ope rativ e pr inc ipl e” that bu sin es se s and g ove rn m en t “ m ust ex er ci se 10 re as ona

ble c ar e to d isc ove r an d pr ev en t dange ro us c ondi tio ns c ause d by pe opl e on 11 the ir pr em ise s” ; ho ldi ng that th e “ hot zo ne ” af fi da vit suf fi ce d to “ ra ise que sti ons 12 ab out the de gr ee of stu de nt viol en ce a nd the sc hool ’ s e ff orts t o di sc ove r an d pr ev en t 13 stu de nt vio le nc e in tha t ar ea ” an d to es ta bli sh a ge nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t “ as to 14 whe th er t he re was a da ng ero us co nd it io n o n t he pre m is es of t he hi gh sch oo l” ). 15 { 61} T he re is no evi de nc e in this ca se (o r ev en ana lle ga tio n) that the A L H S pa rk ing 16 lot was a “ hot zone. ” Plaintiffs, m oreover, explicitly disclaim ed reliance on a theory 17 tha t “ the hig h sc hool park ing lot w as a‘ hot

z one ’ f or vio le nc e, ” ci tin g E

nc ini as onl y 18 fo r its ge ne ra l st at em en t tha t “ the fa ct s of a ca se w ill supp ort a w ai ve r unde r Se ct ion 19 41- 4- 6( A ) if

the y w oul d su

ppor t a f ind ing of li ab ility ag ai nst

apr iva te pr ope rty37

1 owner. ” E

nc ini as , 201 3- N MS C- 045, ¶ 15. O n a ppe al , P la in ti ffs m ak e no s pe ci fi c 2 ar gum en t ba se d on E

nc ini as , m er el y

r ec iti ng tha t sam e ge ne ra l st at em en t and the 3 equa lly ge ne ra l st at em en t tha t “ Se ct ion41- 4- 6( A ) inc or por at es the c onc ep ts o f 4 pr em ise s li ab ili ty

f ound in our c as e law . ” T he la ck of de ve lop ed a rg um en t i s r ea son 5 enough for us to decline to consid er w hether E nc ini as req ui res rev ers al

. See H eadley 6 v. M orga n M gm t. Co rp. , 200 5- N MC A -0 45, ¶ 15 , 1 37 N

. M. 339 , 110 P

. 3d 1 076 7 (r ef usi ng t o c onsi de r a curs or y a rg um en t tha t i nc lu de d no e xpl an at iona nd n o f ac ts 8 perm itting evaluation of the claim ). 9 { 62} Regardless, Plai n t i ff s ca n n o tes t ab l i s h a w ai v ers i m p l y b y re ci t i ng these general 10 statem ents, w hile disregarding th e legal and factual context grounding the E nc ini as 11 Co urt’ s a ct

ua l holdi ng tha t the as sis tant pri nc ipa l’ s af fi da vit de m onstrate d age nui ne 12 iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t a s to w he the r the re w as a da nge ro us co ndi tio n tha t the sc hool 13 m ig ht reas on ab ly hav e di sc ov ered an d m it ig at ed in th e ex erci se of ord in ary care . See 14 2013 -N MSC- 045, ¶ 18. P laintiffs did no t adduce com petent evidence of the existence 15 of a dan ge ro us con dit ion in the sc hool pa rk ing lot or that A L H S kne wor

sho uld ha ve 16 known that the parking lot was unsafe, or t hat AL HS knew or shou ld have kno wn that 17 N ish a ha d apr ope nsi ty f or vio le nc e or

pos ed a thr ea t to Mar ce lle (o r to any one a t the 18 sc ho ol ). Pl ai nt iff

s di d no t all eg e an y of

th es e th in gs . Se e, e . g. , Ca sti llo , 1988-NMS C19 037, ¶ 10 ( sta tin g th at

the de fe ndant’ s li ab ili ty

de pe nde d on w ha t it “ kne w or sho uld38

1 have known ab o u t l o ose-running dogs in the com m on area, whether

such loos e2 runni ng d ogs shou ld h av e be enf or es ee n a s athr ea t t o th e sa fe ty of the r es ide nts a nd 3 inv ite es , a nd the m eans a t the dis posa l of the [d ef en da nt] to co ntr ol the pr es en ce of 4 loo se -r unni ng d ogs” ; ho ldi ng tha t the c om pla int a lle gin g “ know le dge on the part of 5 the de fe ndant of the unsa fe co ndi tio n re pr es en te d by dogs r unni ng l oose w ith in the 6 pr oj ec t” sta te d a cl ai m w ith in S ec tio n 41 -4 -6 (A )) ; Ca lla wa y , 199 4- N MC A -0 49, ¶

19 7 (“ [T he p] laintiff h as s tated a claim sufficient to wa ive im m unityunder Section 41-4-6 8 because [the d ] efendants knew or should have kn own that roam ing gang m em bers 9 w ithakno w n pr ope nsi ty f or vio le nce h ad

a cc es s to pot en tia l w ea pons in the 10 re cr ea tio n are a, that su chga ng m em be rs c re at ed

adange ro us c ondi tio n onthe 11 prem ises of the penitentiary , and that the danger to oth er inm ates w as foresee able.” ); 12 se e als o Sai

z v. B el en Sc h. D ist

. , 1992 -N MS C- 018, ¶¶ 43- 44, 113 N

. M. 387, 827 P. 2d 13 102 (s ta tin g th at

li ab ili ty und er the T CA“ is b as ed so le ly” on a br ea chof

the 14 “ re as ona

bly pr ude nt p erso n’s st an da rd

of c ar e, ” w hic h r equir es e vid en ce of “ the 15 fo res eeab il it y , to one wh o has or shou ld hav e kn ow le dge , that his or her a ct or fa ilure 16 to a ct w ill r es ult

in anunr ea sona

ble r isk of inj ur y ” (i nte rn al quo ta ti on m ar ks and 17 ci ta ti on om it te d) ). 18 { 63} Pl ai nti ffs cla im that “ [a ] s age ne ra l pr opos iti on, park ing lot s c anbe 19 da nge ro us[ , ] ” quot ing a sta te m en t by V ill ine s r ef

er en ci ng “ [t ] he na tur e of

he av y f oot39

1 an d ve hic le tr af

fi c at c er ta in t im es of

the day ” and “ the co m

bin at ion of

e as e of a cc es s 2 an d la ck

of na tur al sur

ve ill an ce in m an y pa rk ing lot s[

. ] ” Bu t the y did not a rg ue thi s 3 poi nt bel ow , an d they of fe r no c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th is “ ge ne ra l pr opos iti on” a nd the 4 conditi on of the AL HS parking lot at the tim e o f t h e i n ci d ent. I n fact, Plaintiffs 5 of fe re d no e vid en ce that any of the pur porte d fa ilure s iden tif

ie d by V ill ine s m ad e the 6 pa rk ing lot unsa fe or tha t im ple m en ta tio n of any of the m ea sur es he dis cu sse d w oul d 7 have p re vented the assault. While Villines charac terized the f ailures he cited as 8 br ea ch es of his pr of

fe re d “ ind ustry ” standard of care , he did not say that the park ing 9 lot was in a dangerous conditi on, and to the extent Plaintiffs argue that it wa s, they 10 ha ve ch arac te riz edth atco nd it io n o nl y as a lac k o f su pe rv is io n. 11 { 64} Furtherm ore, the issue presented in thi s case is the l eg al q u estion whether 12 Se ct ion 41 -4 -6 (A ) w ai ve s im m uni ty f or the c la im

a lle ge d, a nd P la int if

fs do n ot 13 ex pla in h owthe ir

e xpe rt ’ s op ini ons as to w ha t co nst itu te s the standard of c ar e an d th e 14 way s i n wh ic h ALHS b rea c h e d t ha t s ta nd ardare m at eri al un de r th e g ov ern in g l aw, 15 or ev en rel ev an t, to ou r de te rm in at io n of tha t q u e s t i on . See, e. g. , E spi noza , 199 5- 16 NMS C-070, ¶ 14 (stating that even if the defe ndant “ arguably had a duty

. . . , there 17 can be no liabilityfor any breac h of that duty because im m unityhas not been 18 wa ived”); M

art in , 2008- N MC A -1 52, ¶ 6 ( “ A n is sue of

f ac t i s ‘ m at er ia l’ if

the 19 existence (or non-existence) of the f act is of consequence under the substant ive rules40

1 of lawgov er

nin g th e pa rt ie s’ dis put e. ”) ; Young , 2004 -N MC A -0 74, ¶ 33 ( ex pla ini ng 2 tha t “ ne gli ge nc e ar isi ng o ut of the vio la tio n of a stat uto ry duty doe s not change the 3 im m uni ty gr an te d un de r the [ T CA ] ”) ; M.D.R. , 1992 -N MC A -0 82, ¶ 3 ( sta tin g th at

“ it 4 does not necessarily fo llow” fr om the fac t that the departm ent em ploy ees “ have a 5 responsib ili ty

t o oversee and supervise the safety and well- being of child ren entrusted 6 to” it that “ the [d] epartm ent m ay be held liable under the [T CA] for a brea ch of that 7 d u t y” b ec ause the TC A “ declare s that gov ernm ental entities and pu blic em ploy ees 8 sha ll onl y

be li ab le w ith in the li m itatio ns o f its pr ovi sio ns” ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 9 and citation om itted)). 10 { 65} Pl ai nti ff

s se em to ass um e tha t a ll the y ne ed do t o de m onstrate that the ir c la im 1 1 f a l l s wi t h i n S e c t i o n 4 1

- 4

- 6 ( A ) i s a l l e g e n e g l i g e n c e u n d e r a“ p r e mi s e s l i ab i l i t y” 12 th eo ry . Thi s i s i nc or rect . Whi le cla im s d et erm in edto f a l l w i t hi n S ect io n 4 1- 4- 6( A) 13 ar e an al y ze d a s pr em ise s li ab ili ty c as es , a ne gli ge nc e cl ai m is n ot a ct ion ab le a ga ins t 14 a go ve rn m en t de fen da nt un le ss it fal ls wit hi n th e wai ve r. Se e, e . g. , Th om pson v . Ci ty 15 of A lbu que rque , ___ -NMSC -___, ¶ ¶ 11, 17 ( dis cu ssi ng T CAw ai ve r as a n is sue 16 determ ined before consideration of the elem ents of the claim based on tra ditio nal tort 17 co nc ep ts ). As a m at te r of law, Pl ai nt iff

s h av e n ot est ab li sh edth atSect io n 4 1- 4- 6( A) 18 w ai ve s im

m uni ty f or the ir c la im a ga ins t A L H S ba se d on E nc ini as .41

1 c. U

pto n Does N ot Re quire the Conc lus i o n Th at Sec tion 41-4-6(A) Waives 2 TC A Im m un it y f or P lai nt if

fs ’ C lai m 3 { 66} Pl ai nti ff

s arg ue , c iti ng U

pto n , that the ir

c la im is “ a ty pe of c la im ” tha t our 4 Su pr em e Co urt r ec ogni ze d a s disti nc t fr om ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on and w ith in S ec tio n 5 41-4-6(A)—“ nam ely , where public em ploy ees fa il to have or fol low safety policies 6 tha t a ppl y to tho se w ho u se apub lic bui ldi ng. ” A cc or din g to P la int if fs , “ thi s is the 7 ult im at e dis tin ct ionthat m ak es adif fe re nce in the pr es en t c as e. ” W e dis ag re e. T he 8 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat “ N ewMe xic o lawdoe s no t r equir e tha t a pub lic hig h 9 sc hool ha ve aw ri tte n po lic y c onc er nin g parkin g lot saf

ety ” is not con tr ar

y to U pto n , 10 as Pl ai nti ff

s cont en d; nor

did the c ourt e rr

in re ad ing U

pto n ’ s ho ldi ng a s pr em ise d on 11 m ul ti pl e p ol ic y

fai lu res . 12 { 67} In U

pto n , th e p ar en ts of a student who died from an asthm a attack a fter a 13 subs tit

ute phy sic al ed

uc at ionte ac he r re qui re d he r to p ar tic ipa te in str enuous e xe rc ise 14 su ed a sch ool di strict for negligence, arguing that Section 41 -4-6(A ) w aived 15 imm un it y . U pto n , 2006-NMS C-040, ¶ 1. T he claim wa s based on allegation s of a 16 course of negligent conduct byschool person nel over two tim e periods that create d 17 an unreasonable risk of harm to their daught er, Sarah, and other stud ents with m edical 18 co nd it io ns . Id

. ¶ 10

. 19 { 68} The plainti ffs alleged that they had advised Sarah’ s phy sical education teacher 20 and the schoo l of Sar ah’ s conditi on, verbally and in writing; the teacher agree d that42

1 S a r a h c o u l dl i mi th e r

p a rt i c i p a t i o n i f s h e f

e l tt h a te x e r c i s e w a s t r i g g e r i n g a n a s t h ma 2 attack; and Sa rah’s condition and the special services she w ould need we re 3 do cu m en te d i n a n i nd iv id ua li zed educ at io n p la n (I EP) wit h t he sch oo l. Id

. ¶ ¶ 2, 10. 4 The plaintiffs had instructed that school personnel c ou l d i m m ediately contact m edical 5 p er s o n n el d i re ct l y i n t h e ev en t o f an at t ac k an d h ad re ce i v ed as s u ra n ce s t h at Sa ra h ’s 6 sp eci al ne ed s wou ld be m et

. Id

. T he atta ck oc curr ed , the y cl ai m ed , be ca use the sc hool 7 ne gli ge ntl y

f ai le d to inf

orm the sub sti tut e te ac he r of S ar ah ’ s sp ec ia l ne ed s, c re at ing 8 a da nge ro us c ondi tio n f or S ar ah , a nd the te ache r m ad e Sarah pe rf orm str enuous 9 ex erci se , e ve n th ou gh Sara h t ol d t he tea ch er o f he r di st res s. Id

. The plaintiffs f

urther 1 0 al l eg ed t h at t h e s ch o o l n eg l i g en t l y fa i l ed t o re s p o n d t o t h e a t t ac k , r es u l t i n g i n Sa ra h ’s 11 de ath, by

w ai tin g f if te enm inu te s af

te r Sarah’ s di str es s w as not ic ed to ca ll 911 an d by 12 failing to adm inister CPR, although it wa s clear from the onset of the attack that 13 Sara h was no t b reat hi ng well an d t ur ni ng bl ue . Id

. ¶ 11. 14 { 69} Inr ev er sin g th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr y of s umm ar

y j udgm en t f

or the sc hool 15 di st ric t, o urSupr em e Co ur t af fir m edth e lo ng st an di ng ho ld in g t ha t Se ct io n 4 1- 4- 6( A) 16 does n ot

w a i ve im m unityfor cla im s “ based solely on neglig ent supervisio n[,] ” U pto n , 17 2006 -N MS C- 040, ¶ 16, an d tha t “ [f ] or the w ai ve r to ap ply , the ne gli ge nt ‘ ope ratio n 18 or m ai nte na nc e’ m

ust c re at e a da nge ro us c ondi tio n th at thr ea te ns the ge ne ra l pu

bli c 19 or a class of users of the building.” Id

. ¶ 8. T he Co urt c onc lud ed , how ev er , that the43

1 w ai ve r ap pli es to “ sa fe ty pol ic ie s ne ce ssary

to pr ote ct

the pe opl e w ho u se the 2 bui ldi ng” a nd tha t the sc hool dis tr ic t c re at ed adang ero us co ndi tio n by f ai lin g “ to 3 follow procedures established for at- risk stud ents,” w hich “ student s have been 4 prom ised, and upon which p arents h ave re lied.” Id

. ¶¶ 9, 13. T he Co urt re

j ec te d th e 5 ar gum en t tha t “ the [ pla int if fs ’ ] c om pla int a m ount s to nothin g m or e than a cl aim of 6 negligent supervisio n of one stud ent during a ph y sical education class,” stating that 7 the plaintiffs “ challenge far m ore than a single failure of oversight by one overworked 8 teacher .” Id

. ¶ ¶ 15, 18. T he Co urt e xpl ai ne d: 9 [T ] he [ pla int if

fs ] c ha lle nge the [ s] ch ool [ d] istri ct ’s g en er al f ai lur e to 10 im

ple m en t pr om ise d sa fe ty pol ic ie s fo r at -r isk stu de nts

. T he [ pla int if fs ] 11 cl ai m

the [ s] ch ool [ d] istri ct

ne gli ge ntl y

put in m oti on a

c ha in o f ev en ts 12 tha t bo th p re ce de d and f oll ow ed the spe ci fi c de ci sio ns o f the ha pless 13 subs tit

ute te ac he r. T he sc hool f ai le d to im

ple m en t S ar ah’s I EP , to 14 re spon d a

ppr opr ia te ly

to the spe ci fi c inf

orm at ionit

w as giv en about 15 Sarah’ s c ondi tio n, an d to im ple m en t the spe ci fi c as sur an ce s giv en to the 1 6 [p l ai n t i ff

s ] ab o u tt h e c ar e t h e s ch o o l wa s t o p ro v i d e i n l i g h to f S ar ah ’s 17 special needs. T he subst itute teacher , a school em ploy ee, force d Sarah 18 to c ont inu e he r ex er ci se de spi te tangi ble ev ide nc e of he r dis tr es s. T he n, 19 the school failed to prop erly im plem ent its em e r ge nc y

p rocedures. Fac ed 20 w ithS ar ah ’ s a cu te dis tr es s, the sc hool ne ve r adm ini ste re d C PR , no o ne 21 ca lle d 91 1 inati m el y m an ne r, Sar ahw as sim

ply w he el ed out sid e to 22 aw ai t e m er ge nc y pe rs onne l. 23 Id

. ¶ 18. 24 { 70} T he Co urt r ea sone d th at , if the onl y ne gli ge nc e al le ge d w as the sub sti tut e 25 teacher ’ s failure to w atch Sarah during ph y sical exerc ise, the c laim would be “ m

uch 26 cl ose r to the sin gle a dm ini str at ive de ci sio n in A rc hib eq ue [and] practica lly identical44

1 to the sin gle c la im

of ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on w e fo und ina de qua te in E spi noza [, ] ” but 2 th atth e co nd uc t al le ge d wen t “ be y on d t he se li m it s.” U pto n , 200 6- N MS C- 040, ¶ 21. 3 O ur S upr em e Co urt f

urthe r sta te d: 4 Fi rs tt h e s ch o o l i g n o re dt h e in fo rmat i o n i t wa s g i v en b y t h e [ p l ai n t i ff s ]. 5 This led to the school activelyparticipating in causin g the asthm a attack 6 by

f or ci ng S ar ahto do m or e ex er ci se than sh e w as sup pose d to do. 7 A ct ive ly

f or ci ng s tud en ts, w ho are kno w n to have he al th p ro ble m s, 8 creates a fore seeable risk that such a health em ergency will occur. Then 9 the sc hool f

ai le d to f oll ow thr oughw ithpr ope r em er ge nc y pr oc ed ur es , 10 ne gli ge nt o m iss ion s th at e xa ce rb at ed the pr obl em ca use d by it s pr ev iou s 11 ne gli ge nt a ct ion s. T he se a ct ion s and om iss ion s co m bin ed to cr ea te the 12 da nge ro us c ondi tio n, pla ci ng S ar ahin a far w or se pos iti on tha n th e 13 reasonable and expected risks of school life. 14 Id

. (al te rat io n a nd in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. 15 { 71} Co nt rary to Pla in ti ffs ’ arg um en ts , U pto n does not require the conclusi on that 16 Se ct ion41- 4- 6( A ) w ai ve s im m uni ty f or he r cl ai m

ag ai ns t A L H S. F ir st, nothin g in 17 U pto n can be read as a general rule requiring that publ ic schools m ust have written 18 pol ic ie s c onc er

nin g su pe rv isi on o f sc hool park ing lot s. S ec ond, P la int if fs a re w ro ng 19 i na s s e r

t i n g ( quot ing U

pto n , 20 06 -NMSC -0 40 , ¶ 13 ) th at“ a p ol ic y co nc ern ing stu de nt 20 sa fe ty in the sc hool pa rk ing lot is p re ci se ly the ty pe of ‘ sa fe ty se rv ic e[ ] that st

ude nts 21 have been prom ised, and upon which parents have relied. ’ ” The y h av e n either 22 al le ge d no r subm itt ed a ny e vid en ce tha t an y pr om ise s w er e m ad e to Marc el le (o r to 23 any one) concerning the parking lo t or that any parent re lied on any

such promis e. 24 Plaintiffs ar e also wr ong to the extent they contend that their claim

is actionable und er45

1 U pto n ba se d on a the or

y tha t Runn el s’ ab se nc e fr om the pa rk ing lot at the ti m e of the 2 inc ide nt i s af

ai lur e to fo llo w the A L H S pol ic y r equir ing m oni tor ing of

the park ing 3 lo t af te r sc ho ol

. 4 { 72} As t he for eg oi ng di s c u s s i o n m ak es cle ar, U pto n ’ s ho ldi ng w as e xpr es sly 5 pr ed ic at ed

on f ac ts n ot e ve n a lle ge d he re : a stu de nt w it h spec ia l m ed ic al ne ed s; 6 pa re nts w ho p re vio usl y a dvi se d th e sc hool a nd the stu de nt’ s te ac he r of tho se ne ed s 7 an d of the pr oc ed

ur es r equir ed

to ad dr es s t he m , wh ich w er e doc um en te d inthe 8 stu de n t ’ s I E P ; a s s u r a n c e s f r o m t h e s c h o o l a n d t h e t e a c h e r t h a t t h e s tu d e n t ’ s ne ed s 9 w oul d be a ddr es se d; and a co ur se of co nduc t ove r a pe ri od o f tim e inv olv ing m ult ipl e 10 acts of alleged negligence, includin g failure to re spon d to the m edical em ergency that 11 de ve lo pe d aft er t he on se t o f th e st ud en t’s as th m a at ta ck

. See 200 6- N MS C- 040, ¶ ¶ 2, 12 10 , 18

. U

pto n ’ s hold ing th at Section 4 1-4-6(A) wa ived imm unityfor the cla im

in that 13 case w as based on num erous facts and circ um stances not present in th is case. 14 { 73} Plaintiffs’ citation to two cas es involv ing swim m ing po ols (which they 15 charac terizes a s “ the U pto n li ne of

c as es ”) doe s no t a lte r our c oncl us io n that

the ir 16 sa fet y po li cy th eo ry fai ls to de m on st rat e a wai ve r. 17 { 74} In Seal v. C

arlsb ad Independent School District , 199 3-NMS C-049, 116 N. M. 18 101, 860 P.2d 743, the plaintiff’ s decedent, a phy sically

and m entally

disabled 19 ei ght ee n- y ear- old

w ho c oul d no t sw im , dr ow ne d inapoo l owne d and ope rate d by the46

1 sc hool dis tr ic t wh ile h e pa rt ic ipa te d ina n a qua tic c am p pl an ne d, pr ovi de d, a nd 2 su pe rv is edby the Bo y Sco ut s. Id

. ¶ 2. Our Suprem e Court re versed summ ary 3 j udgm en t f

or the de fe ndant, in pa rt , be ca use of its co nc er

n that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d 4 not c onsi de r al le ga tio ns of the sc hool dis tr ic t’ s “pr im ar y ne gli ge nc e” f

or “ fa ili ng t o 5 en sur e tha t a

pr ope rl y tr ai ne d li fe guard

w as pr es en t and ac tin g as suc h an d by f ai lin g 6 to p ro vid e ne ce ssary

sa fe ty e qui pm en t, ” both r equir ed by r eg ula tio ns. I

d. ¶¶ 9- 10, 17. 7 Se al does not even m ention Section 41 -4-6(A ). 8 { 75} In E

spi noza , our

S upr em e Court ex pla ine d that , in c ontra st t o Se al , w he re “ the 9 unsa f e c o n d i t i o n o f

t h e p r e m i s e s w a s as w i m m i n g p o o l w i t h o u tt h e s up e r i n t e ndi ng 10 lif eg ua rd pr ote ct ion re qui re d by sta tut e[ , ] ” the town pl ay gr ound in E spi noza “ w as a 11 safe area for children” and “no t a condition requiring sup ervision” and the alleged 12 negligent supervisio n of children at the pla ygr o u n d did no t create an unsafe 13 conditi on. 1 995-NMSC- 070, ¶ 1 4. Noting that “ [t] he Le gislature has expressly stated 14 tha t be ca

use of the br oa d ra

nge of the gov er nm en t’ s a ct ivi tie s, it

‘ shou ld n ot h av e the 15 dutyto do everything that m ight b e done’ for the benefit of the public[,] ” the Court 16 he ld tha t “ [e ] ve n if

the [ de fe ndant] a rg uably ha d a duty in this c as e, the re c anbe no 17 liability for any breach of that duty because im m unity has not b ee n wa i v ed .” Id

. 18 (quotin g Section 41-4-2(A))

.47

1 { 76} Le ith ea d

inv olv ed ane gli ge nc e cl ai m

br ough t on be ha lf

of A m an daL ei the ad , 2 w ho n earl y

dr ow ne d inac ity

sw im m ing poo l whe n she w as six y ears old

. 199 7- 3 NMC A- 041, ¶¶ 1-4. Am anda and other children enrolled in a YMCAprogram we re 4 al low ed

int o th e pool w ith out

a ny inquir y c onc erni ng the a ge s or

he igh ts o f the 5 children, despite pool regulatio ns requiring adult sup ervision for children y oung er 6 th an sev en an d u nd er fo rty-eig ht in ch es in he ig ht

. Id

. ¶ 2. Le ith ea d a f

f i rme dt h a t“a 7 cl ai m of ne gli ge nt s uper vision , standi ng a lon e, is not suf fi ci en t t o br ing ac au se of 8 ac tio n w ith in the w ai ve r of im m uni ty cr ea te d by Se ct ion 41- 4- 6[ , ] ” but he ld tha t the 9 al le gatio ns and e vid en ce pr es en te d br ough t the c la im w ith in the w ai ve r. Le ith ea d , 10 1997 -N MC A -0 41, ¶

8. T his Co urt r ea sone d a s f oll ow s: 11 A sw im

m ing poo l w it hout a n a de qua te num be r of tr ai ne d li fe guard s 12 cr ea te s adange ro us c ondi tio n on the phy sic al pr em ise s w hic h a ff ec ts the 13 sw im

m ing pub lic a t l ar ge . I n f

ac t, li fe guard

se rv ic es ar e so ess en tia l t o 1 4 the sa fe t y o f a s w i m m i n g p o o l t h a t t h e y s e e m a k i n t o o t h e r k i n d s of 15 sa fe ty

e qui pm en t, suc h a s li fe lin es a nd la dde rs , tha t ar e funda m en ta l i n 16 m aking th e prem ises reasonably safe f or t he swim

m ing pu blic. Fa ilure 17 to p ro vid e tho se se rv ic es in re as ona ble quanti ty

a nd qua lity

( lif eg ua rd s 18 “ present and acting as such”) m akes the prem ises unsafe. 19 Id

. ¶ 15. I n c ontra st, “ ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on o f a ch ild in the [d ef

en da nt’ s] care did

not 20 cr ea te an un sa fe c ondi tio n, ” an d “ [t ] he [ de fe ndant’ s] f au lt [i n E

spi noza ] lay

in 21 negligent ly

adm inistering a sum

m er day cam

p which

. . . is not a cate gory for w hich 22 sovereign im

m unity has been wa ived und er the [ TC A] .” Le ith ea d , 199 7- N MC A -0 41, 23 ¶ 9.48

1 { 77} T he uns upe rv ise d publi c sc hool park ing lot in thi s c as e bears no s im ilari ty to 2 a p ub l i c s w i m

m i n g p o o l w i t h o u t t h e l i f e g u a r d s a n d s a f

e t y e qu i p m e n t r e qu i r edby 3 re gul at ion s. A s U

pto n a cknow le dge d, “ a sc hool bui ldi ng i s no t a s in he re ntl y 4 da nge ro us a s asw im

m ing poo l[

. ] ” 2006 -N MSC -0 40, ¶ 19. I n U pto n o u r S up r e me 5 Court distin guish ed the plaintiffs’ claim from a claim of negligent su pervision based 6 on nu m ero us fact s. Id

. ¶ 21. T he a lle ga tio ns and e vid en ce P la int if fs pr esen t do not 7 requ ire or pe rm it us t o dr awthe sa m e dis tin ct ionhe re a nd d o no t su ppor t the 8 co nc lus ion tha t eithe r the ab se nc e of a w ri tte n po lic y c onc er nin g su pe rv isi on o f the 9 A L H S pa rk ing lot

or the abse nc e of

asup er vis or in the park ing lot

a t the ti m e of

the 10 in ci de nt bri ng s Pl ai nt iff s’ cla im wit hi n S ect io n 4 1- 4- 6( A). 11 N o Ge nu in e Iss ue of M at er ial F ac t P re cl ud es En tr y of S um m ar y Ju dg m en t fo r 12 ALH S 13 { 78} Plaintiffs contend that they pro ff er ed “ num erous dispu ted issues of m aterial 14 fa c t , each of wh ic h wer e su ffi ci en t t o p recl ud e jud gm en t i n ALHS’[s] fav or .” 15 Plaintiffs do not identify a single one. Instead, they rec ite the list of failures identified 16 by Villines, asserting that they dem onstrate that AL HS “ breached the standard of care 17 th atreq ui res sc ho ol s to ha ve ap pr op ria te writ te n po li ci es in pl ace fo r st ud en t s afet y .” 18 { 79} A s di sc uss ed

above , P la int if

fs r el y sol el y on the f

ai lur es of A L H S to h av e 19 w ri tte n po lic ie s f

or s up ervi sio n and s ec ur ity in the park ing lot , w hil e pr ovi din g no 20 ba sis f

or dis tin gui shi ng the m

f ro m ac la im of ne gli ge nt super

vis ion

. A s a lso10 W e not e tha t i t i s no t cl ear fr om the m at er ia ls subm itt ed by V ill ine s tha t he is 5 11 co m pe te nt, ba se d one duc at ion , tr ai nin g, e xpe ri en ce , a nd per sona l kn ow le dge , to 12 te sti fy a s an e xpe rt

on the standard

of c ar e ap pli ca

ble to N ewMe xic o publi c sc hool 13 pa rk in g lo ts , as th e ru le s re qu ire

. See Ru le 1- 056( E ) (r equir ing tha t “ af fi da vit s sh al l 14 be m ad e on p er sona l kn ow le dge , sha ll se t fo rth suc h fa ct s as w oul d be a dm iss ibl e in 15 ev ide nc e, an d shal l show af fi rm at ive ly tha t the af

fi an t is com

pe te nt t o te sti fy

to the 1 6 mat t e r s s t a t e d t h e r e i n ” ) ; R u l e 1 1

- 7 0 2 NM RA ( p e rmi t t i n g o p i n i o n t e s t i mo n y b y a 1 7 “ w itn e s s w h o i s qu a l i f i e d a s a n e x p e rt b y kn o w l e d g e , s k i l l , e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g, or 18 ed uc at ion

. . . if

the e xpe rt ’ s sc ie nti fi c, te ch nic al , or oth er spe ci al iz ed

kno w le dge w ill 19 he lp the tr ie r of

f ac t t o un de rs tand the e vid en ce or to de te rm ine af

ac t i n issue ”)

. It

is 20 al so n ot c le ar

that e xpe rt te sti m ony w oul d be re qui re d in thi s c as e, e ve n if the c la im 21 di d f a l l wi th in th e wai ve r. See Mott v. Sun Coun try Garden Prods., Inc. , 199 5- 2 2 N MC A

- 0 6 6 , ¶ 3 4 , 1 2 0 N

. M

. 2 6 1 , 9 0 1 P

. 2 d 1 9 2 ( “ [ I ] f t h e f a c t i n i s s u e is w ith in t he 23 ken of the average lay j uror, expert opin ion testim ony is not necessar y .” ). AL HS does 24 not ra ise the se iss ue s and, in lig ht o f our dis posi tio n of

the w ai ve r iss ue , w e ne ed not 25 reac h t he m . 49 1 dis cu sse d, P la int if

fs do not exp la in how the opi nio ns of the ir e xpe rt c onc er nin g th e 2 standard

of c ar e an d th e w ay s inw hic h A L H S br ea ch ed it ar e m at er ia l un de r the 5 3 gove rn ing lawto our

de te rm ina tio n of

the le ga l qu es tio n of

w he the r Se ct ion41- 4- 4 6( A ) w ai ve s im

m uni ty f or the ir c la im

. N or

ha ve the y

ide nti fi ed

a ny oth er ge nui ne 5 dis put e of

f ac t m at er ia l t o th e w ai ve r de te rm ina tio n. I n short, Pl ai nti ff s have f ai le d to 6 de m onstrate that the re ar e any m at er ia l issue s of f ac t onthe que sti on o f w he the r the 7 A L H S pa rk ing lot ha d any co ndi tio n that re nde re d it unsaf e, dange ro us, or

de fe ct ive 8 that caused the incident betwee n Nisha and Marce lle to take place. Having concluded 9 as a m atter of law that there is no waiver, we have no need or reas o n to consid er 10 ev id en ce co nc ern in g th e el em en ts of n eg li ge nc e. See, e. g. , E spi noza , 1995-NMS C11 070, ¶ 14; A rm ijo , 1989-NMC A- 043, ¶ 5. Even if the facts did supp ort a negligence50

1 cl ai m , t hi s wou ld no t su ffi ce to es tabl is h a wai ve r. Se e M ill iro n , 201 6- N MC A -0 96, 2 ¶ 2; Young , 200 4- N MC A -0 74, ¶ 33; M.D.R. , 199 2- N MC A -0 82, ¶ 3. 3 CON CLU SION 4 { 80} Fo r the fo re goi ng re as ons, w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ngs tha t A L H S is 5 a pu bl ic sc ho ol pr ot ect edby the TCA, th atPla in ti ffs ’ ne gl ig en ce cl ai m ag ai ns t ALHS 6 doe s no t fa ll w ith in the w ai ve r of im m uni ty pr ovi de d by Se ct ion 41- 4- 6( A ), a nd i ts 7 en tr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of A L H S, dis m iss ing P la int if fs ’ c la im a ga ins t 8 AL HS with prej udice. 9 { 81} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e 12 I CONCUR:

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 14 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e51

1 GAR CIA , Jud ge (spec ially concu rring). 2 { 82} I w r i t e t o s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y i n t h i s c a s e . P l a i n t i f f s f i l eda 3 do ck et in g s ta te m en t t ha t was for ty-ni ne da y s l at e. See Rule 12-208(B) NM RA 4 (“ W ith in thirty (30) days a ft er fi lin g th e not ic e of appe al

. . . the appe llant shal l f ile 5 a doc ke tin g st at em en t[

. ] ” (e m pha sis a dde d) ). P la int if

fs a lso f ai le d to pr ovi de an y 6 re as ona

ble j ust if ic at ionf or thi s de la y or ot herw ise r eque st an e xte nsi on o f tim e to 7 al lo w f orth e la te fil in g o f th ei r do ck et in g s ta te m en t. See Rule 12-312(A) N MRA(“ If 8 an ap pe ll an t fa il s t o fi le a do ck et in g st at em en t i n t he Co ur t o f App eal s . . . as pro vided 9 by these rules , suc h f

ai lu re m ay

be de em ed

suf fi ci en t gr ound s f

or dis m iss al of

the 10 ap pe al by

the appe llate c ourt. ” (e m pha sis a dde d) ); se e also Jo hnso n v . Sc h. B d. of 11 A lbu que rque P ub. Sc h. Sy s. , 199 1- N MCA-0 62 , ¶ 6, 113 N

. M. 117 , 823 P

. 2d 9 17 12 (r ec ogni zi ng the appe llate c ourt’ s di sc re tio n to gr ant an ex tensi on f or f ili ng a 13 docketing statem ent that is onl y “ a fe w day s late”). 14 { 83} A lth oughour

c al en da ri ng s y ste m

a llo w s f or the la te f

il in g of the doc ke tin g 15 sta te m en t and s ubse que nt b ri ef ing by the part ie s, any

a cc om m oda tio n w ith in the 16 ap pe llate pr oc es s do es not pr ev en t this Co urt f

ro m a ddr es sin g th e m er its of the 17 unt im el y

doc ke tin g st at em en t onc e the dis tr ic t co urt re co rd ha s be en re ce ive d and the 18 cas e is as si gn ed to th e g en eral cal en da r. Se e Jo hnso n , 199 1- N MC A -0 62, ¶ 3 ( not ing 19 tha t “ unt il a doc ke tin g st at em en t ha s be enf ile d inthi s [ C] ourt, w e ca

nnot c onsi de r the52

1 m er its of

the appe al be ca

use w e re ly

on the doc ke ting st at em en t un de r our 2 ca l en d ar i n g s yst em to p ro v i d e u s wi t h t h e f ac t s an di s s u es s o u g h tt o b e r ai s ed ”) . We 3 al so n ote that the “ re fu sa l t o c onsi de r the of fe ndi ng p ar

ty ’ s c ont en tio ns” is one of le ss 4 se ve re a ct ion s th at

the a ppe llate c ourt m ay

c onsi de r as an ap pr opr ia te sanc tio n f or the 5 la te fil in g o f an ap pe ll an t’s d oc ke ti ng st at e men t

. Rul e 1 2- 31 2( D). But see State v. 6 Lo pe , 2 01 5- NMCA-0 11 , ¶ 8, 34 3 P.3 d 18 6 (rec og ni zi ng th at in cri m in al ap pe al s, we 7 ar e obli ga te d to a cc ep t a de fe ndant’ s a

ppe al that i s f

ile d late ba se d up on “ a co nc lus ive 8 presum ption of ineffe ctive assistance [of counsel] ” in those circum stances). 9 { 84} Pl ai nti ff

s pr ovi de d no j ust if

ic at ionf or the late f

ili ng o f the ir

doc ke tin g 10 sta te m en t and i t w as subs tanti al ly m or e than a fe w da y s la te

. U nde r the c ir cu m stanc es , 11 Ru le 12- 312( D ) pe rm its thi s C ourt t o r ef use to co nsi de r Pl ai nti ff s’ iss ue of

f ir st 12 im pr es sio n—whe the r the la ck of pa rk ing lot pol ic y at A L H S qua lif ie s as an e xc ep tio n 13 unde r Se ct ion41- 4- 6( A ) of the T CA

. I c hoos e to e xe rc ise thi s C ourt’ s di sc re tio n 14 unde r Ru le 12- 312( D ) to r ef use to ad dr es s P la int if

fs ’ T CAiss ue f

or tw o r ea sons . 15 Fi rs t, f

orty -n ine day s late is not j ust if ie d w ith out

aw el l- ar tic ula te d r ea son an d va lid 16 j ust if ic at ionf or f ili ng the doc ke tin g st at em en t l at e. S ec ondl y , the ap pl ic at ionof 17 pa ragr ap h f

if te enin E nc ini as w as not

w el l- de ve lop ed

by P la int if fs ’ br ie fs to thi s 18 Co urt, a nd the iss ue of abr oa de r T CA ex ce pti on— be ing one of fi rs t i m

pr es sio n—i s 19 rat he r pe rp le xi ng . See 201 3- N MS C- 045, ¶ 15. A lth oughthi s C ourt m igh t c er tif y both53

1 iss ue s to our

S upr em e Co urt f

or c lari fi ca tio n un de r Ru le 12- 606 N MR A , I w oul d 2 sim ply c hoos e to a ff

irm ba se d up on R

ule 12- 312. H av ing sa t by de sig na tio n on 3 E nc ini as , I r em ai n c onf

use d by our Su pr em e Co urt’ s r ec ogni tio n of the “ da nge ro us 4 co ndi tio n” e le m en t of T CAli ab ili ty

a nd the a dde d di ct a fo r TCA li ab ili ty in 5 pa ra gr ap h f

if te en —i f the f ac ts “ w oul d su

ppor t a f ind ing of li ab ili ty a ga ins t a pr iva te 6 pr ope rty

ow ne r. ” 2013 -N MS C- 045, ¶¶ 13 -15. T he se state m en ts are not m utu al ly 7 co m pa tib le , an d our Su

pr em e Co urt ga ve no g uid an ce to as sis t the low er c ourts w ith 8 thi s dil em

m a. I re spe ct m

y co lle ag ue s’ ef

fo rt s to ad dr es s the iss ue in thi s ca se but 9 pr ef er to spe ci al ly

c onc ur due to Pl ai nti ff

s’ de fe ct ive ly

la te doc ke tin g st at em en t. 10 { 85} Fo r the r ea sons state d her ei n, I spe ci al ly co nc ur w ith the m aj or ity a nd w oul d 11 af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s tw o or de rs .

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e