 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper v. Amerada Hess Corp.9/15/2000
74, 648 P.2d 313 (1982), argue that improper venue requiring dismissal of one or more defendants requires the dismissal as to the remaining defendants. We disagree with this reading of Naumberg. In Naumberg, the plaintiff brought suit in Bernalillo County against the Cumminses, residents of Bernalillo County and Buena Vista Estates, a domestic corporation having its principal place of business in Bernalillo County. The relief requested by the plaintiff included rescission of a real estate contract for the purchase of land located in Santa Fe County and an injunction prohibiting the escrow agent from delivering the deed to the property to the defendants. The Cumminses moved to dismiss, citing Section 38-3- 1(D). The trial court denied the motion and the Cumminses appealed. The Supreme Court held that the action involved an interest in land under Section 38-3-1(D) and reversed, dismissing the action as to all defendants, notwithstanding the fact that Buena Vista Estates had not objected to venue in Bernalillo County.
Naumberg involved defendants whom the Supreme Court believed were "necessary and indispensable parties." Id. at 275, 648 P.2d at 314. We believe that Naumberg is best explained as a sua sponte application of the then-current, but subsequently rejected, principle that the absence of an indispensable party is a non-waivable, jurisdictional defect. See C.E. Alexander & Sons, Inc. v. DEC Internat'l, Inc., 112 N.M. 89, 811 P.2d 899 (1991) (overruling prior cases holding that absence of indispensable party is jurisdictional defect). Under the then- prevailing view of indispensability, dismissal of the complaint as to the Cumminses required dismissal as to Buena Vista Estates due to a lack of jurisdiction in the district court of Bernalillo County. We decline to apply Naumberg outside its particular facts and its historical context.
CONCLUSION
We affirm in part and reverse in part. The trial court's order of dismissal is reversed as to Defendants Amerada, Chevron, Dynegy, Concho, Arch and Rice. The trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed as to Defendants Rhombus Energy, Rhombus Operating and Primero.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
WE CONCUR:
M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge
T. GLENN ELLINGTON, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|