125 F.3d 86197 CJ C.A.R. 2259 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on amaterial issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oralargument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.
Roger D. BOYDSTON and Sandie J. Boydston, doing businessasJTB Title and Registration Services, formerlyknown as JTB Auto Sales, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUEDEPARTMENT; Motor VehicleDivision; John J. Chavez, in his individual capacity andofficial capacity as Secretary of New Mexico Taxation andRevenue Department; Gary A. Montoya, in his individualcapacity and official capacity as Director of the MotorVehicle Division of the New Mexico Taxation and RevenueDepartment; Charles Daniels, in his individual capacity andofficial capacity as Senior Investigator of the MotorVehicle Division of the New Mexico Taxation and RevenueDepartment, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-2234.(D.C. No. Civ 96-1118-M)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 3, 1997.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.1
2MURPHY, C.J.3After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determinedunanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs withoutoral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case istherefore ordered submitted without oral argument.4Plaintiffs appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in defendants'favor on their claims that defendants violated their federal and state rights whenterminating their employment by the State of New Mexico. We affirm.5Plaintiffs entered into two written contracts, the "agent contract" and the"inspector contract," with the Director of the New Mexico Motor VehicleDivision of the Taxation and Revenue Department, whereby they wereauthorized to perform specified services relative to motor vehicle registration,licensing, and inspection. A third contract, the "data access agreement," granted plaintiffs access to computerized motor vehicle records to carry out their dutiesunder the other two contracts. Following an investigation of plaintiffs' allegedlyimproper automobile licensing practices, defendants notified plaintiffs on July24, 1995, that the agent contract and inspector contract were terminated.Defendants also informed the computer database operator not to permit plaintiffs to use the database. A few days later, following plaintiffs' applicationfor a temporary restraining order, the parties stipulated to continue all threecontracts. Consequently, plaintiffs continued to operate their business under thesame terms as those provided in the contracts until the district court enteredsummary judgment for defendants on August 25, 1996.6On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in (1) denying their constitutional due process claims on the grounds that they did not have a property interest or a liberty interest in continuing the contractual relationshipwith defendants; (2) holding that defendants did not breach the contracts; and(3) finding that sovereign immunity was not waived under the New MexicoTort Claims Act. Plaintiffs also claim that they are entitled to declaratory relief.Defendants request an award of attorneys' fees on appeal.7We review de novo the district court's decision to grant summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See Watson v. University of Utah Med. Ctr., 75F.3d 569, 574 (10th Cir.1996). We consider the record in the light mostfavorable to the party opposing summary judgment. See id. Summary judgmentis appropriate where there are no genuinely disputed issues of material fact andone party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id.
Constitutional Property and Liberty Interests89We first address plaintiffs' claim that they had a protected property interest intheir continued contractual employment relationship with defendants, entitlingthem to substantive and procedural due process protections. The FourteenthAmendment safeguards interests that a person has acquired in specific benefitsas defined by state law. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77(1972). To have a property interest in continued employment, a person musthave "a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Id. at 577; accord Russillo v.Scarborough, 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir.1991) ("Under New Mexico law, a public employee has a protected property interest only if he has an express or implied right to continued employment.").10Plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to continue to work pursuant to thecontracts unless the contracts were terminated for good cause. They allegedefendants terminated the contracts without cause, thereby implicating plaintiffs' due process rights.11Plaintiffs rely on language in the contracts and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-2-14,which states that "[t]he [Motor Vehicle Division of Taxation and RevenueDepartment] may terminate the designation of any agent for failure of the agentto perform to the secretary's satisfaction the agent's duties by notifying theagent of the termination." The agent contract provides that "[e]ither partyhereto may terminate this agreement at any time, with or without cause, bygiving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party." Appellants' App. at146. It is undisputed that defendants gave thirty days' written notice of cancellation of the agent contract.12The inspector contract states, "Inspector Agent [plaintiffs] may terminate thisagreement at any time, with or without cause, by giving 30 day[s'] notice to theDivision. The Division may terminate without notice." Id. at 261. Plaintiffsargue that the inspector contract permits only them, not defendants, to terminate"with or without cause," thereby requiring cause for defendants to terminate it.We reject such a tortured interpretation, and conclude that the defendants werenot required to show cause for terminating the inspector contract.13The data access agreement provides for cancellation in the event of a breach for good cause shown. See id. at 165-68. Construing the contracts together, as plaintiffs request, we recognize that the purpose of the data access agreementwas to implement the other two contracts. Therefore, when the agent contractand the inspector contract were canceled, it was appropriate to deny plaintiffs
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.