Anti-SLAPP protection

NM Stat. § 38-2-9.1 and NM Stat. § 38-2-9.2 allow a special motion to dismiss “unwarranted or specious lawsuits.”

Law summary

The statute only applies to lawsuits concerning speech made in connection with a public hearing or a public meeting held by a state or local government entity. The law expedites a “special motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or motion for summary judgment.”

The statute intends to “prevent the abuse of the legal process and avoid the burden imposed by such baseless lawsuits.” (NM Stat. § 38-2-9.2).

Legal actions

New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law includes four features that help protect publishers from meritless lawsuits:

• Special motion to dismiss: A defendant can file a motion to throw out the lawsuit if it qualifies as a SLAPP.
• Expedited legal process: The law requires the court to consider a motion filed under the statute on an expedited basis.
• Interlocutory appeal: Any party involved can file for an expedited appeal on the ruling applied to any of the motions granted by New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law or on a failure of the court itself to rule on an expedited basis.
• Attorney fees: If the motion is granted, a defendant is entitled to attorney fees and costs, assuming filing deadlines are met.

Helpful cases

Because of its narrow approach to speech, there are not many examples of New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law being used by publishers. However, there are some cases that exemplify how New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law has been narrowly applied:

Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture (2018)

Lightning Dock Geothermal (LDG) sued Americulture in federal court for allegedly breaching a joint agreement concerning the use of geothermal activity on land on which LDG had mineral rights. LDG claimed Americulture had objected to LDG’s attempts to apply for state permits and misrepresented LDG and its project. In response, Americulture filed a motion under New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law, claiming that the permits LDG sought pertained to land outside of the shared agreement. The district court denied the motion, finding that “New Mexico’s Anti-SLAPP statute is a procedural provision that does not apply in the courts of the United States.” The case shows that New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP statute is “inapplicable in federal diversity action.”

Valenzuela v. My Way Holdings, LLC (2024)

Johnny Raul Valenzuela, a racehorse jockey, was accused in 2017 of possessing a prohibited electronic device before a race. The board of stewards suspended Valenzuela’s license and imposed a fine, but the administrative hearing officer reversed the decision due to lack of evidence. Valenzuela sued the defendants on eight counts. My Way Holdings  made a motion under New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP statute, claiming that their testimony at the disciplinary hearings was protected under the statute. The district court denied the motion, claiming that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply. The Court of Appeals found the district court erred in this decision, concluding the speech in question to be related to a “quasi-judicial proceeding,” and therefore protected by New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP statute. Although the Court of Appeals found that defendants had a right to pursue a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, they ultimately affirmed the district’s court denial of the special motion to dismiss, citing the sham exception under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Chandler v. Advance New Mexico Now PAC (2021)

Advance New Mexico Now PAC was sued for mailers it published and distributed that made allegations of child abuse on a ranch owned by J. Scott Chandler, a candidate for New Mexico’s House of Representatives. In response, Advance made a motion under New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law. The district court denied its motion to throw out the case, claiming the statements could be defamatory. The Court of Appeals concluded the speech was not “engaged in for the purpose of petitioning or participating in proceedings before a local or state governmental tribunal” and thus not protected under New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Legislative activity

No revisions have been made to the law since its implementation in 2001.

Of note

New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP law has a D rating from the Institute for Free Speech. Additional cases invoking New Mexico’s anti-SLAPP statute can be found under the statute itself.