June 15, 2020- Cathy Carnes v. City of Hobbs, No. A-1-CA-37832

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 CATHY CARNES,
3 Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-37832
5 CITY OF HOBBS, CITY OF
6 HOBBS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
7 CHIEF OF POLICE CHRISTOPHER
8 MCCALL, LIEUTENANT CHARLES
9 CUNNINGHAM, and CITY MANAGER
10 J.J. MURPHY,
11 Defendants-Appellees.
12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
13 Kea W. Riggs, District Judge
14 The Sawyers Law Group, LLC
15 James W. Klipstine, Jr.
16 Hobbs, NM
17 for Appellant
18 Bryan Evans
19 Roswell, NM
20 for Appellees
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/15/2020 8:07 AM

2
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2 VARGAS, Judge.
3 {1} Plaintiff appealed following the dismissal of her complaint. We issued a notice
4 of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed
5 a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we affirm.
6 {2} Because the relevant background information has previously been set forth, we
7 will avoid undue reiteration here, and focus instead on the substantive content of the
8 memorandum in opposition.
9 {3} With respect to the first issue originally presented, concerning the
10 characterization of Defendants’ dispositive motion, Plaintiff effectively concedes.
11 [MIO 2-3] Accordingly, further discussion of that issue is unnecessary.
12 {4} With respect to the second issue, by which Plaintiff challenged the propriety
13 of the dismissal of her complaint for failure to exhaust remedies, we remain
14 unpersuaded. As we observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, [CN
15 2-3] this Court previously rejected the argument Plaintiff advances, under nearly
16 identical circumstances, in the case of Rist v. Design Center at Floor Concepts, 2013-
17 NMCA-109, ¶¶ 10, 13, 16-25, 314 P.3d 681 (observing that failure to exhaust
18 administrative remedies deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction;
19 holding that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue

3
1 letter cannot be treated as an order of nondetermination from the New Mexico Human
2 Rights Division (NMHRD); explaining that absent such an order, a claimant has
3 failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the New Mexico Human Rights Act
4 (NMHRA), such that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate; and concluding that
5 a similar complaint, which specifically stated a claim for violation of the NMHRA,
6 did not state a claim for wrongful termination).
7 {5} In her memorandum in opposition Plaintiff suggests that her response to
8 Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be regarded as sufficient to provide notice of
9 her intent to pursue a claim for retaliatory discharge. [MIO 4-5] However, in ruling
10 upon Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court was called upon to evaluate the
11 sufficiency of the complaint, not to determine whether other pleadings suggested that
12 additional claims could be added. [RP 40-44] See Humphries v. Pay & Save, Inc.,
13 2011-NMCA-035, ¶ 6, 150 N.M. 444, 261 P.3d 592 (“Motions to dismiss under Rule
14 1-012(B)(1) and (B)(6) . . . test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the factual
15 allegations of the pleadings[.]” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). And
16 as previously stated, Rist clearly holds that a complaint such as Plaintiff’s, which
17 specifically and exclusively invokes the NMHRA, does not set forth a claim for
18 retaliatory discharge. See 2013-NMCA-109, ¶¶ 20-23. If Plaintiff had moved to
19 amend her complaint in order to state a claim for retaliatory discharge, the outcome

4
1 might well have been different. See Mitchell-Carr v. McLendon, 1999-NMSC-025,
2 ¶ 22, 127 N.M. 282, 980 P.2d 65 (observing that “it is not uncommon for courts to
3 allow jurisdictional defects to be cured by granting leave to amend the complaint,”
4 and indicating parenthetically that the courts should grant plaintiffs leave to amend,
5 unless a jurisdictional defect is incurable). However, that did not occur in this case.
6 As a result, we conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed. See, e.g., Rist
7 2013-NMCA-109, ¶¶ 10, 13, 16-25 (declining to read a similar complaint to set forth
8 a retaliatory discharge claim, and concluding that dismissal was ultimately in order).
9 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
10 disposition and above, we affirm.
11 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
14 WE CONCUR:
15
16 J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge
17
18 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge