Court Opinion

ID: 9958261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 17:07:56.054127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.801038
License: Public Domain

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: April 8, 2024

No. S-1-SC-39541

PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
SANTA TERESA, a New Mexico
non-profit corporation, MARY
GONZALEZ, WILFREDO SANTIAGO-
VALIENTO, SONIA SANTIAGO,
TOMMY HIGGINS, SACH SUE
COCHRAN, EVELIA CHAPARRO,
RALPH ENCIANS, VICKIE
STANFIELD, JOHNNY STANFIELD,
PAUL MAXWELL, STEPHEN D.
WATSON, KRAIG L. CARPENTER,
and EDWINA SEISS,

      Appellants/Plaintiffs-Petitioners/Respondents,

v.

CITY OF SUNLAND PARK,

      Appellee/Defendant-Respondent/Petitioner,

and

SOCORRO PARTNERS I, LP a/k/a
SOCORRO PARTNERS LP d/b/a
SOCORRO PARTNERS 1, LTC,

      Defendant-Interested Party,

and

DOÑA ANA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS,

      Intervenor-Appellant.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
Manuel I. Arrieta, District Judge

Mynatt Springer P.C.
Blaine T. Mynatt
Bradley A. Springer
Alan J. Dahl
Las Cruces, NM

for Petitioner

New Mexico Local Government Law, LLC
Randy M. Autio
Randall D. Van Vleck
Lea Corinne Strife
Albuquerque, NM

for Respondents

Dickinson Wright, PLLC
David M. Mirazo
El Paso, TX

for Interested Party Socorro Partners

Office of the Doña Ana County Attorney
Nelson J. Goodin
Las Cruces, NM

for Intervenor Doña Ana County Board of County Commissioners

                       DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

PER CURIAM.

{1}    This matter having come before the Court upon the City of Sunland Park’s
(Sunland Park’s) appeal from the Court of Appeals memorandum opinion in the matter
of Provisional Gov’t of Santa Teresa v. City of Sunland Park, A-1-CA-36279, mem. op.
(N.M. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2022) (nonprecedential), see Rule 12-502(A) NMRA (“This rule
governs petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari seeking review of decisions of the
Court of Appeals.”);

{2}      The Court having reviewed the briefs of the parties, and otherwise having been
fully informed on the issues and applicable law;

{3}    The Court having chosen to exercise its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA
to dispose of a case by nonprecedential order;
IT IS THEREFORE ADJUDGED THAT:

{4}     In 2015, the residents of the unincorporated territory of Santa Teresa—organized
into a non-profit corporation, the Provisional Government of Santa Teresa (PGST)—
petitioned the Doña Ana Board of County Commissioners (Doña Ana Board) to
incorporate as a new municipality and the petition was denied.

{5}    PGST appealed to the district court and the district court affirmed the Doña Ana
Board. See Amended Final Appellate Order from an Administrative Hearing, Provisional
Gov’t of Santa Teresa v. Doña Ana Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs and City of Sunland Park, D-
307-CV-2015-02653 (3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Sept. 19, 2016). PGST then appealed to the
Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the Doña Ana Board’s order
denying PGST’s incorporation petition, and remanded to the district court with
instructions “to reverse the Doña Ana Board’s decision and instruct the Doña Ana Board
to address PGST’s claim that it can provide municipal services more quickly than
Sunland Park, and whether PGST’s petition otherwise satisfies the requirements of
Sections 3-2-1 to -9.” Provisional Gov’t of Santa Teresa v. Doña Ana Cnty. Bd. of
Comm’rs, 2018-NMCA-070, ¶ 32, 429 P.3d 981.

{6}    On remand, the Doña Ana Board again denied PGST’s incorporation petition on
the merits. Order Regarding the Petitioners’ Municipal Services Plan and Compliance
with Statutory Requirements for Incorporation, In re Petition for Incorporation of City of
Santa Teresa (Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Doña Ana Cnty. July 14, 2021). PGST appealed
the Doña Ana Board’s decision to the district court, where it remains pending. Amended
Notice of Hearing, Provisional Gov’t of Santa Teresa v. Doña Ana Cnty. Bd. of
Comm’rs, D-307-CV-2021-01818 (3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Dec. 22, 2023).

{7}    In 2016, while the incorporation petition was pending on appeal, Socorro
Partners I, LP a/k/a Socorro Partners LP d/b/a Socorro Partners 1, LTD (Socorro
Partners), a private corporation, successfully petitioned Sunland Park to annex several
parcels of its land that lay within the unincorporated territory of Santa Teresa—parcels
which were also included in PGST’s pending 2015 incorporation petition.

{8}     On PGST and the Doña Ana Board’s appeal of the Sunland Park’s annexation
decision, the district court affirmed the annexation. See Final Order, Provisional Gov’t of
Santa Teresa v. City of Sunland Park, D-307-CV-2016-02087 (3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Feb.
23, 2017). The Court of Appeals then reversed the district court, holding that the district
court below “had no basis by which to affirm the approval of Socorro Partners’
annexation petition,” in light of the pending incorporation proceedings. Provisional Gov’t
of Santa Teresa, A-1-CA-36279, mem. op. ¶¶ 11-12. Applying the doctrine of prior
jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals concluded that the incorporation petition had priority
over the annexation petition because it was filed first and, thus, the annexation
proceedings “should never have been initiated, and certainly should not have
proceeded to the extent they have.” Id. ¶ 11.

{9}   In its petition for writ of certiorari, Sunland Park asks this Court to reverse the
Court of Appeals’ memorandum opinion in Provisional Gov’t of Santa Teresa, A-1-CA-
36279, mem. op., on the grounds that PGST’s incorporation petition lost priority over the
annexation petition when the Doña Ana Board denied the incorporation petition.

{10} The doctrine of prior jurisdiction requires that “the court first obtaining jurisdiction
retains it as against a court of concurrent jurisdiction in which a similar action is
subsequently instituted between the same parties seeking similar remedies involving
the same subject matter.” Amrep S.W., Inc. v. Town of Bernalillo, 1991-NMCA-110, ¶ 7,
113 N.M. 19, 821 P.2d 357 (quoting In re Doe, 1982-NMCA-115, ¶ 13, 98 N.M. 442,
649 P.2d 510 (overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996-NMCA-073, ¶ 12
n.3, 122 N.M. 126, 921 P.2d 322)); see also State ex rel. Parsons Mining Co. v.
McClure, 1913-NMSC-034, ¶ 16, 17 N.M. 694, 133 P. 1063 (“[A]s between courts of
concurrent jurisdiction, the first acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter of an action is
permitted to retain it to the end.”). The doctrine applies equally to administrative
proceedings and it has been applied to annexation disputes in New Mexico. Amrep,
1991-NMCA-110, ¶ 8.

{11} The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that, pursuant to the
doctrine of prior jurisdiction, PGST’s incorporation petition is entitled to priority over
Socorro Partners’ annexation petition because the incorporation petition was filed first
and it is still being litigated on remand in the matter of Provisional Gov’t of Santa
Teresa, D-307-CV-2021-01818.

{12} The incorporation petition has not lost priority while pending on appeal and
subsequent remand, see 21 C.J.S. Courts § 255 (2023) (“[The first] court is not to be
obstructed in the legitimate exercise of its powers by a court of concurrent or coordinate
jurisdiction but is subject only to appellate authority.”).

{13} Sunland Park and Socorro Partners also argue that PGST and the Doña Ana
Board do not have standing to challenge the annexation. This Court concludes that
PGST and the Doña Ana Board have standing to appeal the annexation petition
because PGST and the Doña Ana Board suffered injury that was caused by the
annexation that is “likely to be redressed by a favorable decision,” see ACLU of N.M. v.
City of Albuquerque, 2008-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 1, 10, 144 N.M. 471, 188 P.3d 1222 (“[O]ur
courts have generally required that a litigant demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and
redressability to invoke the court’s authority to decide the merits of a case.”).

{14} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the memorandum opinion of the
Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed.

{15} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded to the district court with
instructions to stay the annexation proceedings in district court until such time as the
incorporation proceedings—including all subsequent appeals of the district court’s
forthcoming decision in the matter of Provisional Gov’t of Santa Teresa, D-307-CV-
2021-01818—are concluded.

{16}   IT IS SO ORDERED.
C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice