Garcia v. Jeantette

27 Citing cases

  1. Martinez v. Martinez

    2017 NMCA 32 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016)

    The parties agree that we review these points for abuse of discretion. See Riggs v. Gardikas , 1967–NMSC–120, ¶ 8, 78 N.M. 5, 427 P.2d 890 (stating that the district court's decision to not re-open a case and hear additional evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Roark v. Farmers Grp., Inc. , 2007–NMCA–074, ¶ 20, 142 N.M. 59, 162 P.3d 896 (recognizing that the admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Garcia v. Jeantette , 2004–NMCA–004, ¶ 15, 134 N.M. 776, 82 P.3d 947 ("The decision whether to grant or deny a request for attorney fees rests within the sound discretion of the district court."). An abuse of discretion occurs when "the court's ruling exceeds the bounds of all reason" or "is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable."

  2. Paz v. Tijerina

    142 N.M. 391 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 19 times
    Reversing an award of attorneys fees that were not authorized by statute and declining to award attorneys fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct under a right for any reason rationale because "it would be unfair to now affirm the award on such fact-dependent grounds of bad faith conduct when the district court made no findings on this issue"

    Therefore, to whatever extent the documents contain evidence of Respondents' bad faith, this evidence cannot support the attorney fee award. See Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶¶ 22-26, 134 N.M. 776, 82 P.3d 947 (refusing to affirm an attorney fee award as a sanction for bad faith conduct pursuant to the "right for any reason" doctrine because it would be unfair to the appellant to affirm on such a "fact-dependent ground" that was not raised below). The district court made its decision to award attorney fees based on legal arguments; it would be unfair to now affirm the award on such fact-dependent grounds of bad faith conduct when the district court made no findings on this issue.

  3. Chandhok v. Companion Life Ins. Co.

    556 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (D.N.M. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 415, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). See Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 16, 134 N.M. 776, 778, 82 P.3d 947, 950 ("[G]enerally a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery.")(citing Monsanto v. Monsanto, 1995-NMCA-048, ¶ 7, 119 N.M. 678, 680-81, 894 P.2d 1034, 1037-38 ); Craft v. Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1238-39 ("In the absence of statutory authority to the contrary, parties pay their own attorney's fees."); Credit Inst. v. Veterinary Nutrition Corp., 2003-NMCA-010, ¶ 38, 133 N.M. 248, 256, 62 P.3d 339, 347 ("As a general rule, litigants are responsible for their own attorney fees absent statutory authority or some other authority such as a contract allowing such fees.")

  4. Envtl. Dimensions, Inc. v. EnergySolutions Gov't Grp.

    No. 1:16-cv-1056-KWR-JHR (D.N.M. Mar. 18, 2021)

    II. Attorneys' fees under NMSA 1978, § 57-12-10 (C) Generally, trial courts lack authority to award attorneys' fees absent contract or statutory right. Fallen v. GREP Sw., LLC, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1165, 1186-87 (D.N.M. 2017) (quoting Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Thompson Theaters, Inc., 621 F.2d 1088, 1091 (10th Cir. 1980)); See Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 16, 134 N.M. 776, 82 P.3d 947, 951 ("[G]enerally, a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery." (citing Monsanto v. Monsanto, 1995-NMCA-048, ¶ 7, 119 N.M. 678, 894 P.2d at 1037)); Craft v. Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque, 84 F.Supp.2d, 1226, 1238-39 ("...New Mexico follows the American rule with respect to attorney's fees—In the absence of statutory authority to the contrary, parties pay their own attorney's fees.").

  5. Fallen v. Grep Sw., LLC

    247 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (D.N.M. 2017)   Cited 19 times
    Awarding $375 per hour to an attorney with 18 years of experience

    Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n , 434 U.S. 412, 415, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). See Garcia v. Jeantette , 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 16, 134 N.M. 776, 82 P.3d 947, 951 ("[G]enerally, a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery." (citing Monsanto v. Monsanto , 1995-NMCA-048, ¶ 7, 119 N.M. 678, 894 P.2d at 1037 )); Craft v. Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque , 84 F.Supp.2d at 1238–39 ("In the absence of statutory authority to the contrary, parties pay their own attorney's fees."); Credit Inst. v. Veterinary Nutrition Corp. , 2003-NMCA-010, ¶ 38, 133 N.M. 248, 62 P.3d 339, 347 ("As a general rule, litigants are responsible for their own attorney fees absent statutory authority or some other authority such as a contract allowing such fees.")

  6. Skyline Potato Co. v. Hi-Land Potato Co.

    188 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (D.N.M. 2016)

    "The American Rule is shorthand for the general rule that in the absence of legislation providing otherwise, litigants must pay their own attorney's fees." Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 415, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). SeeGarcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 16, 134 N.M. 776, 82 P.3d 947, 951 ("[G]enerally, a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery."

  7. Skyline Potato Co. v. Hi-Land Potato Co.

    188 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (D.N.M. 2016)

    "The American Rule is shorthand for the general rule that in the absence of legislation providing otherwise, litigants must pay their own attorney's fees." Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 415, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). SeeGarcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 16, 134 N.M. 776, 82 P.3d 947, 951 ("[G]enerally, a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery."

  8. Perez v. Qwest Corp.

    883 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D.N.M. 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Holding the language "[a]ny claim, controversy or dispute between you and U S WEST ... whether sounding in contract, statute, tort, fraud, misrepresentation, discrimination or any other legal theory, including, but not limited to, disputes relating to the interpretation of this Attachment," with the attachment being the Arbitration Agreement, did not satisfy the clear and unmistakable test

    Bedard v. Martin, 100 P.3d 584, 593 (Colo.App.2004). Accord Garcia v. Jeantette, 134 N.M. 776, 780, 82 P.3d 947, 951 (Ct.App.2003) (“Generally, a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery.”). “Fee-shifting provisions replace the otherwise applicable rule that the losing party does not have to pay the winner's attorney fees.” Bedard v. Martin, 100 P.3d at 593.

  9. Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall

    No. CIV 07-591 JB/RHS (D.N.M. Feb. 13, 2008)

    "Generally, a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery." Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 16, 82 P.3d 947, 951 (citing Monsanto v. Monsanto, 119 N.M. 678, 681, 894 P.2d 1034, 1037 (Ct.App. 1995)); see Credit Inst.v. Veterinary Nutrition Corp., 2003-NMCA-010, ¶ 38, 62 P.3d 339, 347 ("`As a general rule, litigants are responsible for their own attorney fees absent statutory authority or some other authority such as a contract allowing such fees.'") (quoting Springer Group, Inc. v. Wittelsohn, 1999-NMCA-120, ¶ 23, 988 P.2d 1260, 1266).

  10. Anaeme v. Medical Staffing Network

    No. CIV 05-434 JB/LFG (D.N.M. Sep. 29, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    New Mexico follows the American rule with respect to attorney's fees. See Craft v. Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque, 84 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1238-39 (D.N.M. 1999) ("In the absence of statutory authority to the contrary, parties pay their own attorney's fees."); Garcia v. Jeantette, 134 N.M. 776, 780, 82 P.3d 947, 951 (Ct.App. 2003) ("[G]enerally, a party may recover attorney fees only when authorized by statute, court rule, or an agreement expressly providing for their recovery." (citing Monsanto v. Monsanto, 119 N.M. 678, 681, 894 P.2d 1034, 1037 (Ct.App. 1995))); Credit Inst. v. Veterinary Nutrition Corp., 133 N.M. 248, 256, 62 P.3d 339, 347 (Ct.App. 2002) ("As a general rule, litigants are responsible for their own attorney fees absent statutory authority or some other authority such as a contract allowing such fees.") (quoting Springer Group, Inc. v. Wittelsohn, 128 N.M. 36, 42, 988 P.2d 1260, 1266 (Ct.App. 1995)).