More dates set for co-op hearings
Two hearing dates have been scheduled in the lawsuit involving Socorro Electric Cooperative and its member-owners.
Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. set Friday, Feb. 25, as the date to address pending motions and briefs. That hearing will be held at the courthouse in Los Lunas at 1:30 p.m.
A hearing on partial merits is scheduled for Wednesday, May 18, at 1:30 p.m. in district court in Socorro.
Though the second hearing will be held in Socorro, that doesn’t mean attorneys for the defendants won a motion for change of venue. In a phone interview last week, Mitchell said that decision will be forthcoming.
“I’ll make a decision on venue in a timely manner, but I don’t know how timely,” Mitchell said. “To be frank, it depends on the briefs. I have no idea what the lawyers are going to submit.”
Attorneys had to meet a Dec. 30 deadline to submit briefs on the matter of venue.
The case was originally filed by co-op attorneys in the 13th Judicial District Court in Los Lunas on June 29 of last year. The lawsuit asked for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief from three bylaws — all of which were aimed at increasing transparency at the public non-profit corporation — passed by member-owners at the annual meeting in April 2010. In order to challenge the validity of the bylaws, the co-op filed a lawsuit against all of its approximately 10,000 member-owners, who are also its customers.
Though the co-op later filed papers to have the case dismissed, by then several answers to the lawsuit had been filed by defendants. Several of those requested the case be moved to the Seventh Judicial District Court in Socorro County where the vast majority of member-owners reside.
Another deadline set by the judge is approaching. At a status hearing last month, Mitchell set Jan. 20 as the date for attorneys to file pleadings on the question of whether a judgment should be binding for people who did not respond to the lawsuit.
“When seeking injunctive or declaratory action, which is what this case initially started as, sometimes that can apply to more people,” Mitchell said. “So that (Jan. 20 date) is for motions and documents that I will need at the first (Feb. 25) hearing.”
Mitchell had put a stay on consideration of a countersuit that requests class action certification. So the question as to whether the case applies to people who did not file answers is not directly related to the countersuit.
“In class action, it’s certain that it applies to everyone. If it were a straight class action, we wouldn’t need the February hearing because it’s known that the class action is binding on everyone,” he said.
Mitchell, a 10th Judicial District Court judge who was assigned to the case by the New Mexico Supreme Court, said the class action request is just one aspect that makes this particular case so unique and enigmatic.
“These are really hard issues — esoteric issues,” he said. “Thirty years ago there was no equivalent to class action.”
Mitchell said the purpose of the Feb. 25 hearing is to determine whether the case is the “appropriate vehicle to get into the merits.” He said what transpires then could determine what will be addressed at the May 18 hearing.
“That’s left open. I wanted to get it on the calendar,” he said. “When you have this many lawyers involved, it can be difficult to get everyone in the same place at the same time.”
Nearly a dozen attorneys attended the status hearing on Dec. 14 — two co-op attorneys and nine representing defendants or who had filed responses pro se.
Contact T.S. Last