N.M. Stat. » Chapter 44 — Miscellaneous Civil Law Matters
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 44-9-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act [44-9-1 to 44-9-14 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act".

History: Laws 2007, ch. 40, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For the New Mexico finance authority, see 6-21-4 NMSA 1978.

For the mortgage finance authority, see 58-18-4 NMSA 1978.

For the New Mexico lottery authority, see 6-24-5 NMSA 1978.

Effective dates. — Laws 2007, ch. 40, § 16 made the act effective July 1, 2007.

Severability. — Laws 2007, ch. 40, § 15 provides for the severability of the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act if any part or application thereof is held invalid.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: State v. Oppenheimer & Co., 447 P.3d 1159 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Oppenheimer & Co., 447 P.3d 1159 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “{1} Qui tam plaintiffs Frank Foy and John Casey (Qui Tam Plaintiffs) appeal from the district court's order dismissing their complaint (Complaint) brought pursuant to the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA), NMSA 1978, §§ 44-9-1 to - 14 (2007, as amended through 2015).”
Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D.N.M. 2011). · cites it 3× “1978, §§ 44-9-1 to 14 (2007)(the “FATA”), precludes this lawsuit based on the state court action in Foy v.”
State Ex Rel. Foy v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, 2022 NMCA 026 (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Background and Procedural Posture {2} These two now-consolidated actions were among the first actions filed in New Mexico under the auspices of FATA, NMSA 1978, §§ 44-9-1 to -14 (2007, as amended through 2015).”
New Mexico State Inv. Council v. Weinstein, 2016 NMCA 069 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “D-101-CV-2009-1189 {Austin). Foy is the former chief investment officer at New Mexico’s Educational Retirement Board (ERB).”
United States v. Dental Dreams, LLC, 307 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “" Pl.'s Resp. 23 n.7, ECF No. 123. The Court will therefore dismiss the FCA, MFCA, and FATA claims in Counts 1-12 against Defendants Dental Dreams, LLC a.”
State ex rel. Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “{1} Qui Tam Plaintiff David Peterson (Plaintiff), on behalf of the State, sued Aramark Correctional Services, LLC (Aramark) in May 2010, claiming that Aramark violated the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 44-9-1 to -14 (2007). See § 44-9- 5(A) (stating that a…”
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 323 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “The Complaint alleges that Defendants' conduct exacted a huge financial burden on the State of New Mexico, and Plaintiff seeks various damages against Defendants for their alleged role in igniting an opioid epidemic.”
New Mexico Ex Rel. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n of New Mexico, Inc. v. Austin Capital Mgmt. Ltd., 671 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D.N.M. 2009). · cites it 2× “13] Procedural History This is a qui tom action filed by NEA under New Mexico’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“FATA”), NMSA §§ 44-9-1 to -14. NEA filed the lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, on behalf of the Educational Retirement Board…”
Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D.N.M. 2013). “1978, §§ 44-9-1 to -14 (“FATA”), because the FATA waives New Mexico’s sovereign immunity, and because the Defendants plausibly violated the FATA; and (x) whether the alleged pretextual demotion by the CCSD, Frazzini, Marquez, and Levinski plausibly subjects them to liability…”
United States v. Deming Hosp. Corp., 992 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D.N.M. 2013). “§ 44-9-1 et seq. (Doc. 50 at 50-51.) Plaintiff has asserted that jurisdiction *1166 exists over these claims pursuant to 28 U.”
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 025 (N.M. 2015). · cites it 2× “3 {1} In this case, we address whether the retroactive application of the Fraud 4 Against Taxpayers Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 44-9-1 to -14 (2007) (“FATA” or “the 5 Act”) violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Mexico 6 Constitutions.”
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Preferred Care, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (D.N.M. 2015). “§§ 44-9-1, et seq., prohibits, as is relevant here, the knowing presentation of “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to an organ of the state.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
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.