On Monday, the New Mexico Court of Appeals summarily dismissed yet another frivolous lawsuit brought by Libertarian nominee for New Mexico Attorney General A. Blair Dunn. In the lawsuit Dunn baselessly alleged that the agency in charge of enforcing New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act violated the law. The incoherent claim was struck down swiftly by the court in a humiliating dismissal: “[h]aving chosen not to even address the law and facts . . . [Dunn] has failed.”
In January, a federal court sanctioned Dunn $14,868 for bringing a lawsuit deemed “frivolous” by the Court of the Appeals, against New Mexico’s efforts to reform a bail system that punishes poor New Mexicans.
“What a joke. A lawyer who can’t even file serious lawsuits wants to be New Mexico’s top law enforcement official?” said Marg Elliston, Chair of the Democratic Party of New Mexico. “We’re lucky to have Hector Balderas, a fighter for New Mexico and a competent lawyer, as our Attorney General and I look forward to re-electing him in November.”
January 2018: Federal Judge Sanctions Dunn for “Frivolous” Lawsuit
- New Mexico In Depth: “A federal judge has taken the unusual step of ordering a politically ambitious New Mexico attorney to pay back the state for filing a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit aimed at undoing efforts to reform the state’s commercial bail system. The attorney, Blair Dunn, a Libertarian who earlier this week announced a run for state attorney general, must pay ‘reasonable costs and attorneys fees’ to the office he seeks to occupy by year’s end, under the ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Robert A. Junell.”
September 2018: NM Court of Appeals Throws Out Lawsuit That Didn’t “Even Address The Law And Facts”
- Judge J. Miles Hanisee: “[O]ur analysis in this appeal is limited to the question of whether Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of the undisputed facts. […] Plaintiffs memorandum in opposition to that proposed summary disposition, however, does not address any of those issues. Instead, Plaintiff argues, generally, about the importance of the IPRA. As Plaintiffs memorandum makes no attempt to respond to the actual bases of our proposed disposition of the issues raised in the docketing statement, those issues are “deemed abandoned.” […] Ultimately, because Plaintiff is opposing a notice of proposed summary disposition, it has the burden to “come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact.” […] Having chosen not to even address the law and facts discussed in our notice of proposed summary disposition, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden on appeal and the summary judgment entered below is affirmed.” [Western Agriculture Resource and Business Advocates, LLP v. Balderas, NMCA, 9/10/18]