Opinion ID: 2516648
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (Count I) and New Mexico Antitrust Act (Count II)

Text: {8} The district court concluded that the City of Espanola, Rio Arriba County, and the telephone service provider Defendants could not be liable under the NMUPA and the New Mexico Antitrust Act. [1] The district court held that under NMSA 1978, § 57-12-7 (1999) of the NMUPA, any laws administered by a regulatory body are expressly permitted. Section 57-12-7 states that [n]othing in the Unfair Practices Act shall apply to actions or transactions expressly permitted under laws administered by a regulatory body of New Mexico or the United States.... The district court also dismissed claims brought under the New Mexico Antitrust Act against the City of Espanola, Rio Arriba County, and the telephone service provider Defendants finding that these claims were specifically barred under NMSA 1978, § 57-1-16(A) (1987) of the Antitrust Act. Section 57-1-16(A) is similar to Section 57-12-7 of the NMUPA in that it states that [n]othing contained in the Antitrust Act is intended to prohibit actions which are ... clearly and expressly authorized by any ... regulatory body.... In New Mexico, the NMPRC is authorized to fix, determine, supervise, regulate and control all charges and rates of ... telephone ... companies ... within the state. NMSA 1978, § 63-7-1.1(A)(1) (1998). As discussed earlier, the collect call telephone rates at issue are under the primary jurisdiction of the NMPRC. Because the rates at issue are under the primary jurisdiction of the NMPRC, a regulatory agency, these rates are expressly permitted under Section 57-12-7 of the NMUPA and Section 57-1-16(A) of the Antitrust Act. Therefore, Defendants did not violate NMUPA or the New Mexico Antitrust Act, and we agree with the district court's decision that Counts I and II were properly dismissed.