Las Soleras Center, LLC v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ___________________________

LAS SOLERAS CENTER, LLC,

Plaintiff v. Case No. 1:25-cv-00880-KWR-JMR CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

The Magistrate Judge filed her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) on June 12, 2026, recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). See Doc. 32. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections within fourteen (14) days and that failure to do so waived de novo review by the district court and appellate review. Id. at 22. To date, the parties have not filed any objections, and the time to do so has passed.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 32 at 21. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended the following disposition: 1. Find that Las Soleras’s unconstitutional conditions claims (Claims 3, 4, 5) are barred by the statute of limitations. Supra § III(A).

2. Find that Las Soleras sufficiently alleges that it owned the property taken by the City. Supra § III(B).

3. Find that Las Soleras lacks standing (Claims 1, 2, 6) to bring its park impact fee claims. Supra § III(C).

4. Decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Las Soleras’s state law claims (Claims 7–10). Supra § III(D).

Doc. 32 at 21-22. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court “dismiss Las Soleras’s federal claims (Claims 1–6) with prejudice and dismiss the state law claims (Claims 7–10) without prejudice.” Doc. 32 at 22.

There was no objection to the PFRD. However, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Claims 1, 2, and 6 for lack of standing with prejudice. See Doc. 32 at 22.

Generally, a district court must dismiss claims for lack of Article III standing without prejudice. Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Since standing is a jurisdictional mandate, a dismissal with prejudice for lack of standing is inappropriate, and should be corrected to a dismissal without prejudice.”); see also Owen v. United States, No. 21-4134, 2022 WL 2256005, at *5 (10th Cir. June 23, 2022) (unpublished) (“Because we resolve these claims based on the lack of standing, rather than on the merits, we remand to the district court to vacate its dismissal with prejudice as to these claims and to instead enter an order dismissing both claims without prejudice.”); Santa Fe All. for Pub. Health & Safety v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 993 F.3d 802, 818 n.7 (10th Cir. 2021) (remanding to district court to modify dismissal of claims for lack of standing to without prejudice). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Claims 1, 2, and 6 for lack of standing without prejudice. The Court otherwise adopts the undisputed PFRD. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc.

32) are ADOPTED in part.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.

3. Claims 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

4. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing.

5. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims (Claims 7-10) and dismisses those claims without prejudice. ______________/S/_______________________

KEA W. RIGGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE