Opinion ID: 215429
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are unavailing

Text: Plaintiffs argue that [t]he district court ruled that once New Mexico regulators have decided and filed a rate, no one can challenge it, in any court, on any grounds. This sweeping ruling is so overbroad that it strips consumers of any protection under the New Mexico laws, and ousts the judiciary from any role in scrutinizing regulatory decisions for compliance with statutes and the [New Mexico] Constitution. (Aplt. Br. at 43 (internal citation omitted).) Plaintiffs' characterization is inaccurate. The filed rate doctrine, applied in this case, prevented Plaintiffs from recouping money damages for already-charged excessive or unreasonable rates. The filed rate doctrine, however, does not prevent any ratepayer from challenging the reasonableness of those rates through the administrative process established by the Title Insurance Act, which includes an opportunity for judicial review. See N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 59A-30-4, -6, -8, -9 (adopting procedures in §§ 59A-17-34, -35) (2004). Nor does the filed rate doctrine necessarily preclude claims for injunctive relief, at least to the extent those claims do not implicate the reasonableness of the approved rate for title insurance premiums. Cf. Square D, 476 U.S. at 422 & 422 n. 28, 106 S.Ct. 1922 (recognizing that, while filed rate doctrine precluded damages claim under federal antitrust laws, it did not preclude claims for injunctive and declaratory relief); Arsberry v. Illinois, 244 F.3d 558, 562-63 (7th Cir.2001) (noting that a conspiracy to file (or not file) particular tariffs is not insulated by the filed-rate doctrine from attack under the antitrust laws or other sources of independent rights, provided only injunctive relief is sought (internal citations omitted)); Dolan v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 365 Fed.Appx. 271, 275 (2d Cir.2010) (unpublished) (noting that a plaintiff may sue for an injunction designed to put an end to the conspiracy to set filed rates so long as that injunction does `not enjoin operation under established rates' (quoting Georgia v. Pa. R.R., 324 U.S. 439, 455, 65 S.Ct. 716, 89 L.Ed. 1051 (1945))), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 261, 178 L.Ed.2d 139 (2010); Marcus, 138 F.3d at 62-63 (in determining whether filed rate doctrine precluded claims for injunctive relief, considering whether requested injunction would implicate either non-discrimination or non-judiciability strand of filed rate doctrine).