2020 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 38 - Trials
Article 2 - Pleadings and Motions
Section 38-2-9.1 - Special motion to dismiss unwarranted or specious lawsuits; procedures; sanctions; severability.

A. Any action seeking money damages against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of any political subdivision of the state is subject to a special motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or motion for summary judgment that shall be considered by the court on a priority or expedited basis to ensure the early consideration of the issues raised by the motion and to prevent the unnecessary expense of litigation.

B. If the rights afforded by this section are raised as an affirmative defense and if a court grants a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment filed within ninety days of the filing of the moving party's answer, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by the moving party in defending the action. If the court finds that a special motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the party prevailing on the motion.

C. Any party shall have the right to an expedited appeal from a trial court order on the special motions described in Subsection B of this section or from a trial court's failure to rule on the motion on an expedited basis.

D. As used in this section, a "public meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding" means and includes any meeting established and held by a state or local governmental entity, including without limitations, meetings or presentations before state, city, town or village councils, planning commissions, review boards or commissions.

E. Nothing in this section limits or prohibits the exercise of a right or remedy of a party granted pursuant to another constitutional, statutory, common law or administrative provision, including civil actions for defamation or malicious abuse of process.

F. If any provision of this section or the application of any provision of this section to a person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.

History: Laws 2001, ch. 218, § 2.

Effective dates. — Laws 2001, ch. 218 contained no effective date provision, but, pursuant to N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23, was effective June 15, 2001, 90 days after adjournment of the legislature.

Jurisdiction when there are pending counter-claims in district court. — Where respondent, a Taos school board member, brought a malicious abuse of process claim against petitioners, eighteen members of an unincorporated citizens' association who sought to remove respondent from office, and where the district court granted petitioners' motions to dismiss without addressing certain counterclaims, the appellate court had jurisdiction over all parties under the Anti-SLAPP statute because the overall purpose of the Anti-SLAPP statute would be thwarted by piecemeal litigation if some petitioners were excluded from the appeal, and 38-2-9.1(C) NMSA 1978 allows any party to bring an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order on the special motions brought pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP statute. Cordova v. Cline, 2017-NMSC-020, rev'g 2013-NMCA-083, 308 P.3d 975.

Application to recall petitions. — The anti-SLAPP statute [38-2-9.1 NMSA 1978] does not apply to a sufficiency hearing before a district court to determine the sufficiency of the allegations in a recall petition pursuant to Section 22-7-9.1 NMSA 1978, because a sufficiency hearing before the district court is a judicial proceeding, not a public meeting or a quasi-judicial proceeding as defined in the anti-SLAPP statute. Cordova v. Cline, 2013-NMCA-083, cert. granted, 2013-NMCERT-007.

Where defendants filed a petition with the county clerk to recall plaintiff who was a member and officer of a municipal school board; the county clerk filed an application for a district court hearing on the sufficiency of the recall allegations pursuant to Section 22-7-9.1 NMSA 1978; at the hearing, before the district court determined the sufficiency of the petition, defendants dismissed the petition; plaintiff filed suit against defendants for damages; and the district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute [38-2-9.1 NMSA 1978], the district court improperly dismissed plaintiff's suit because the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to a judicial proceeding to determine the sufficiency of the recall petition. Cordova v. Cline, 2013-NMCA-083, cert. granted, 2013-NMCERT-007.

Law reviews. — For comment , "Resolving Land-use Disputes by Intimidation: SLAPP Suits in New Mexico," see 32 N.M.L. Rev. 217 (2002).