The legislature declares that it is the public policy of New Mexico to protect the rights
of its citizens to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings before local and state
governmental tribunals. Baseless civil lawsuits seeking or claiming millions of dollars
have been filed against persons for exercising their right to petition and to participate in
quasi-judicial proceedings before governmental tribunals. Such lawsuits can be an
abuse of the legal process and can impose an undue financial burden on those having
to respond to and defend such lawsuits and may chill and punish participation in public
affairs and the institutions of democratic government. These lawsuits should be subject
to prompt dismissal or judgment to prevent the abuse of the legal process and avoid the
burden imposed by such baseless lawsuits.
History: Laws 2001, ch. 218, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
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.
Protections when exercising the right to petition. — 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, the district court properly granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss,
because petitioners who pursue the recall of a local school board member under the
Local School Board Member Recall Act, 22-7-1 to 22-7-14 NMSA 1978, are entitled to
the procedural protections of the New Mexico statute prohibiting strategic litigations
against public participation (Anti-SLAPP statute, 38-2-9.1 NMSA 1978), and are entitled
to immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine when they exercise their first
amendment right to petition. Cordova v. Cline, 2017-NMSC-020, rev’g 2013-NMCA-083,
308 P.3d 975.
Anti-SLAPP statute inapplicable in federal diversity action. — Where a lessee of
geothermal mineral rights brought an action in federal court alleging that the owner of a
portion of surface estate breached the parties' joint facility operating agreement by
objecting to their state permit applications, and where defendants filed a special motion
to dismiss pursuant to 38-2-9.1 NMSA 1978, New Mexico's legislative enactment aimed
at thwarting "strategic litigation against public participation" (SLAPP), asserting that New
Mexico's anti-SLAPP statute is a substantive state law designed to protect the
defendants from having to litigate meritless claims aimed at chilling first amendment
expression, the district court did not err in denying defendants special motion, because
New Mexico's anti-SLAPP statute is a procedural mechanism designed to expedite the
disposal of frivolous lawsuits aimed at threatening free speech rights, and thus does not
apply in federal courts as a substantive right or remedy. Los Lobos Renewable Power,
LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018).
Law reviews. — For comment, "Resolving Land-use Disputes by Intimidation: SLAPP
Suits in New Mexico," see 32 N.M.L. Rev. 217 (2002).
38-2-10 to 38-2-22. Repealed.
ANNOTATIONS
Repeals. — Laws 1981, ch. 115, § 1, repealed 38-2-10 through 38-2-22 NMSA 1978,
relating to pleadings and motions, effective March 21, 1981.
Notes of Decisions
L. Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. AmeriCulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 3× “To this end, the statute provides a movant the "right" to have a trial court promptly review the merits of the case (and, if necessary, the "right" to have an appellate court do so as well), so as to limit any harm engendered by the "baseless" lawsuit defined in N.M. Stat. Ann.…”
Cordova v. Cline, 2017-NMSC-020, 396 P.3d 159.
· cites it 5× “Section 38-2-9.2. In order to accomplish this goal, the Legislature created expedited procedures for dismissing actions “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…”
Ferebee v. Hume, 2021-NMCA-012, 485 P.3d 778.
· cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, § 38-2-9.2 (2001) sets out the Legislature’s findings and purpose in enacting the Anti-SLAPP statute, explaining that: [I]t is the public policy of New Mexico to protect the rights of its citizens to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings before local and state…”
K.R. Swerdfeger Constr., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, 2006-NMCA-117, 142 P.3d 962.
· cites it 2× “Nothing in the language of the One-Call Statute expresses a legislative declaration of a strong public policy against contractual delegation of an owner’s duties to locate and mark underground facilities prior to excavation.”
Cordova v. Cline, 2013-NMCA-083, 308 P.3d 975.
· cites it 2× “The purpose of the Legislature in adopting the statute is codified at NMSA 1978, Section 38-2-9.2 (2001), which states that its policy is to “protect the rights of its citizens to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings before local and state governmental tribunals” because…”
Valenzuela v. My Way Holdings, LLC, 541 P.3d 191 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 7× “See NMSA 1978, § 38-2-9.2 (2001) (declaring the public policy of New Mexico to be protecting the rights of its citizens “to petition and to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings before governmental tribunals”).”
Chandler v. Advance N.M. Now PAC, 2021-NMCA-017, 488 P.3d 691.
· cites it 3× “2 (2001), expressly states the “[f]indings and purpose” of the statute: The [L]egislature declares that it is the public policy of New Mexico to protect the rights of its citizens to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings before local and state governmental tribunals.”
Cordova v. Cline, 2013-NMCA-083, 4 N.M. 518.
· cites it 2× “The purpose of the Legislature in adopting the statute is codified at NMSA 1978, Section 38-2-9.2 (2001), which states that its policy is to “protect the rights of its citizens to participate in quasi-judicial proceedings before local and state governmental tribunals” because…”
Cordova v. Cline, 396 P.3d 159 (N.M. 2017).
· cites it 5× “Section 38-2-9.2. In order to 10 accomplish this goal, the Legislature created expedited procedures for dismissing 11 actions “seeking money damages against a person for conduct or speech undertaken 12 or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting in a…”
Valenzuela v. My Way Holdings, LLC (N.M. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “See 3 NMSA 1978, § 38-2-9.2 (2001) (declaring the public policy of New Mexico to be 4 protecting the rights of its citizens “to petition and to participate in quasi-judicial 5 proceedings before governmental tribunals”).”
NM Pub. Regul. Comm'n v. New Mexican, Inc., No. A-1-CA-38898 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2022).
· cites it 3× “See NMSA 1978, § 38-2-9.2 (2001) (explaining that baseless civil lawsuits filed “against persons for exercising their right to petition .”
Avangrid, Inc. v. Sec. Limits, Inc., 570 P.3d 179 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “See § 38-2-9.2 (“These lawsuits should be subject to prompt dismissal or judgment to prevent the abuse of the legal process and avoid the burden imposed by such baseless lawsuits.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.