Martens v. City of Albuquerque

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 27, 2025 4 NO. S-1-SC-39826 5 JOHN MARTENS and PAT MARTENS, 6 Individually and Co-Personal 7 Representatives of the ESTATE OF V.M., 8 Plaintiffs-Respondents, 9 v. 10 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, JOHN DOES 11 1-10, and JANE DOES 1-10, Individually, 12 Defendants-Petitioners. 13 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI 14 Denise Barela-Shepherd, District Judge 15 Office of the City Attorney 16 Lauren Keefe, City Attorney 17 Stephanie M. Griffin, Deputy City Attorney 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Petitioners 20 Bowles Law Firm 21 Jason Bowles 22 Albuquerque, NM 1 Gorence Law Firm, LLC 2 Robert J. Gorence 3 Albuquerque, NM 4 for Respondents 1 OPINION 2 BACON, Justice. 3 {1} Defendant-Petitioner City of Albuquerque (the City) challenges the Court of 4 Appeals’ ruling that written notice by Plaintiffs-Respondents John Martens and Pat 5 Martens (Respondents), individually and on behalf of the Estate of V.M., was 6 sufficient under NMSA 1978, Section 41-4-16(A) (1977) of the New Mexico Tort 7 Claims Act (TCA), NMSA §§ 41-4-1 to -27 and 41-4-30 (1976, as amended though 8 2020). 1 See Martens v. City of Albuquerque, 2023-NMCA-037 , ¶ 12, 531 P.3d 607 . 9 Section 41-4-16(A) requires persons, such as Respondents, who assert tort claims 10 against a public body to send notice of their claims to the public body and sets out 11 the requirements for such notice. Because the notice Respondents sent to the City 12 was sufficient under Section 41-4-16(A) of the TCA, we affirm the Court of Appeals. 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 {2} Central here, Section 41-4-16(A) (“Notice of Claims”) of the TCA provides: 15 Every person who claims damages from the state or any local public 16 body under the Tort Claims Act shall cause to be presented to the risk 17 management division for claims against the state, the mayor of the 18 municipality for claims against the municipality, the superintendent of 19 the school district for claims against the school district, the county clerk 20 of a county for claims against the county, or to the administrative head [1] Section 41-4-30 was explicitly enacted as a “new section of the Tort Claims Act.” 2010 N.M. Laws, ch. 22, § 1. 1 of any other local public body for claims against such local public body, 2 within ninety days after an occurrence giving rise to a claim for which 3 immunity has been waived under the Tort Claims Act, a written notice 4 stating the time, place and circumstances of the loss or injury. 5 (Emphasis added.) 6 {3} On November 17, 2016, Respondents sent their “Notice of Claims Resulting 7 in Injury/Death Per [Section 41-4-16]” (the Notice) to the Bernalillo County Clerk, 8 the New Mexico Risk Management Division, and the Mayor of the City of 9 Albuquerque. The text of the Notice read in full: 10 Re: Incident on or about, in the City of Albuquerque, County of 11 Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, in which the minor child [V.M.] 12 suffered serious injuries, and subsequently death, after the New Mexico 13 Corrections Department Probation and Parole Division, located at 111 14 Gold Ave. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102, the New Mexico Children, 15 Youth and Families Department [(CYFD)], located at 1031 Lamberton 16 Pl. NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107, and the Second Judicial 17 District Court in Bernalillo County, located at 400 Lomas Blvd. NW, 18 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, failed to properly monitor her 19 alleged killer, Fabian Gonzales, on probation; this is the Notice of 20 Claims pursuant to [Section 41-4-16 of the TCA]. 21 To Whom It May Concern: 22 Please take notice that Michael Martens, Wrongful Death Personal 23 Representative of the Estate of [V.M.], may make a claim or claims 24 against the County of Bernalillo, and all affected departments, agencies 25 and divisions within the State, County, and City arising out of the 26 incident involving an accident which took place on August 24, 2016, 27 when Fabian Gonzales, along with two others (Michelle Martens and 28 Jessica Kelley), drugged, sexually assaulted, tortured and killed 1029 year-old [V.M.], after the State of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, 30 and City of Albuquerque generally engaged in tortious conduct and [2] 1 circumstances leading to injury and death of [V.M.], including failure 2 to properly monitor Fabian Gonzales on probation. 3 Notice is provided that claims may be brought regarding the negligence 4 of the State of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, and City of 5 Albuquerque, which resulted in the death of [V.M.] on or about August 6 24, 2016. 7 {4} The City’s response letter of December 15, 2016, to Respondents’ counsel 8 relevantly included the following paragraphs: 9 Regarding the claim against the City . . . , it was determined that 10 subsequent to a murder investigation by the Albuquerque Police 11 Department [(APD)], the manner in which the crime was investigated 12 was appropriate and in accordance with departmental policies and 13 procedures. 14 Based on these circumstances and in the absence of any verifiable City 15 negligence, there is no legal or factual basis by which your client’s 16 claim can be honored, and we are obliged to respectfully deny it. 17 We note the City’s letter inherently acknowledges receipt of the Notice while 18 referring only to the City’s investigation of events subsequent to V.M.’s death, 19 whereas the Notice refers to “tortious conduct and circumstances leading to injury 20 and death of [V.M.].” (Emphasis added.) 21 {5} Respondents filed a complaint in 2017 under the TCA alleging negligence by 22 the City, APD, and unknown officers, including negligence in failing to investigate 23 a referral made by CYFD that arose from an incident before V.M. was killed. The [3] 1 relevant incident involved an allegation that one of V.M.’s mother’s boyfriends had 2 attempted to kiss V.M. 3 {6} The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment regarding 4 dismissal of the unknown APD officers and, central to the issue here, Respondents’ 5 lack of compliance “with the requirement of Section 41-4-16(A) to give written 6 notice of the[ir] claims.” 2 See Mem. Op. and Order, Martens v. City of Albuquerque, 7 D-202-CV-2017-05905, at 4 (2d Jud. Dist. Ct. June 29, 2020). The district court 8 quoted the proposition articulated in Cummings v. Board of Regents that “[t]he 9 purpose of the TCA notice requirement is . . . to reasonably alert the agency to the 10 necessity of investigating the merits of the potential claim against it.” See Cummings, [11] 2019-NMCA-034 , ¶ 21, 444 P.3d 1058 (internal quotation marks and citation 12 omitted). The district court focused its analysis on the Notice’s allegation of 13 “fail[ure] to properly monitor a person on probation,” concluding such an allegation 14 “does not reasonably alert the City to the necessity of investigating the merits of a 15 claim that it failed to investigate a report of child abuse.” Mem. Op. and Order 4. [2] The district court’s opinion and order denied the motion for summary judgment regarding the TCA notice generally, pending determination of the issue of actual notice. Subsequently, the district court denied Respondents’ Motion to Reconsider regarding noncompliance of their written notice, and ruled the City “did not have actual notice.” Mem. Op. and Final Order, Martens v. City of Albuquerque, D-202-CV-2017-05905, at 1 (2d Jud. Dist. Ct. Feb. 8, 2021). [4] 1 {7} The district court further analyzed this allegation in the Notice under the four 2 purposes of the TCA notice requirement articulated in Ferguson v. New Mexico State 3 Highway Commission: 4 (1) to enable the person or entity to whom notice must be given, or its 5 insurance company, to investigate the matter while the facts are 6 accessible; (2) to question witnesses; (3) to protect against simulated or 7 aggravated claims; and (4) to consider whether to pay the claim or to 8 refuse it. [9] 1982-NMCA-180 , ¶ 12, 99 N.M. 194 , 656 P.2d 244 . The district court concluded 10 Respondents’ allegation of failure to supervise a person on probation failed the first, 11 second, and fourth of these purposes by not referring to a potential violation of the 12 Abuse and Neglect Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-4-1 to -35 (1993, as amended through 13 2023). 14 {8} The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Respondents’ “Notice provided the 15 City with the information necessary to investigate its involvement with the 16 circumstances leading to V.M.’s injuries and death” and “satisfied the requirements 17 of Section 41-4-16(A).” Martens, 2023-NMCA-037 , ¶ 12. 18 {9} Under de novo review, the Court of Appeals considered solely whether “the 19 contents of the Notice satisfied the Section 41-4-16(A) written notice requirement.” 20 Id. ¶ 4. While acknowledging the legislative purposes identified in Ferguson, the 21 Court concluded the TCA’s written notice provision requires only “‘a written notice [5] 1 stating the time, place and circumstances of the loss or injury[,]’ . . . directed to at 2 least one of the named individuals in the statute or an agent of those individuals[,] 3 . . . presented ‘within ninety days after an occurrence giving rise to a claim for which 4 immunity has been waived under the [TCA].’” Id. ¶¶ 5-6 (third alteration in original) 5 (quoting Section 41-4-16(A)). 6 {10} Applying this standard, the Court of Appeals concluded the Notice satisfied 7 Section 41-4-16(A), notwithstanding general references to negligent supervision: 8 The Notice states the time, place, and circumstances of the injury by 9 generally referring to the tortious conduct and negligence by the State, 10 the County, and the City, which caused V.M.’s injuries and death on 11 August 24, 2016. . . . The Notice was timely, was sent to appropriate 12 individuals, and identified the time, place, and injury. 13 Id. ¶ 7. 14 {11} The Court of Appeals also addressed and distinguished the City’s citations of 15 Cummings, Ferguson, and Marrujo v. New Mexico State Highway Transportation 16 Department, 1994-NMSC-116 , 118 N.M. 753 , 887 P.2d 747 , regarding the 17 specificity required by Section 41-4-16. Martens, 2023-NMCA-037 , ¶¶ 8-9. First, 18 the Court noted that Marrujo “considered the sufficiency of an actual notice claim 19 and not the requirements for written notice under Section 41-4-16(A).” Id. ¶ 8. 20 Second, the Court noted that Ferguson considered “whether the notice requirement 21 violated due process protections and not whether a particular notice satisfied the [6] 1 statutory requirements.” Id. Finally, the Court acknowledged Cummings addressed 2 “the sufficiency of a written TCA notice.” Id. ¶ 9. However, where the plaintiff in 3 Cummings submitted a relevant affidavit in joining an existing class action, “[t]he 4 Cummings Court did not consider whether or decide that a written tort claim notice 5 must specifically identify a claim or meet a factual threshold that would permit an 6 investigation. Instead, [the Cummings] Court held that the already-filed class action 7 complaint provided notice and the affidavit alerted the defendants that the plaintiffs 8 intended to make claims.” Martens, 2023-NMCA-037 , ¶ 9. Based on these 9 distinctions, the Court of Appeals concluded Cummings does not govern here, where 10 “the Notice [does] . . . meet the statutory requirements on its own terms.” Id. 11 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Id. ¶ 12. 12 {12} We granted the City’s timely petition for certiorari, which presented the 13 following four questions: 14 (1) Whether a written notice that references a different time, place, 15 and circumstance that allegedly results in loss or injury than what was 16 pled in a lawsuit against the governmental entity complies with the 17 Section 41-4-16 TCA notice requirement. 18 (2) To what degree is a claimant required to describe the time, place, 19 and circumstance of the loss or injury to satisfy the written notice 20 requirement set forth in Section 41-4-16(A) of the TCA. 21 (3) Whether the Legislative objective underlying Section 41-4-16 22 should be considered in determ[in]ing the degree and sufficiency of a 23 written notice submitted pursuant to Section 41-4-16(A) of the TCA. 24 (4) Whether the rationale expressed in precedential decisions 25 addressing the sufficiency of actual notice should be applied when [7] 1 determining the degree and sufficiency of a written notice submitted 2 pursuant to Section 41-4-16(A) of the TCA. 3 (Emphasis added.) 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 A. Standard of Review 6 {13} “Whether the district court properly dismissed [Respondents’] claims for 7 failing to comply with the TCA’s notice requirement presents an issue of law, which 8 we review de novo.” Cummings, 2019-NMCA-034 , ¶ 16. “Under the TCA[,] 9 defendants have the burden of proving that the notice requirement was not met.” Id. 10 ¶ 11 (text only). 3 11 {14} We address the parties’ arguments regarding each of the petition questions in 12 turn. 13 B. Respondents’ Notice Satisfied Section 41-4-16(A) 14 1. The time, place, and circumstance in the Notice satisfied Section 41-4-16 15 and did not differ from the time, place, and circumstance of the loss in 16 the subsequent complaint 17 {15} The City characterizes information in the Notice regarding time, place, and 18 circumstance of the loss or injury as “completely different” from that in “(Text only)” indicates the omission of nonessential punctuation marks— [3] including internal quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets—that are present in the text of the quoted source, leaving the quoted text otherwise unchanged. [8] 1 Respondents’ subsequent complaint. The City asserts the Notice “only provided 2 notice of Fabian Gonzales’[s] conduct and alleged that [the City] and other 3 governmental agencies were negligent in supervising [him]” without specifying the 4 subsequent complaint’s child abuse, neglect, or general negligence allegations. The 5 City argues under Cummings that Section 41-4-16(A) is not satisfied by such 6 differences where “[t]he purpose of the TCA notice requirement is to ensure that the 7 agency allegedly at fault is notified that it may be subject to a lawsuit and to 8 reasonably alert the agency to the necessity of investigating the merits of the 9 potential claim against it.” Cummings, 2019-NMCA-034 , ¶ 21 (internal quotation 10 marks and citation omitted). The City generally asserts that by not requiring a party 11 to “provide the governmental entity with notice of probative evidence/facts pre- 12 suit,” the Court of Appeals’ “reasoning defeats the purpose of the Section 41-4-16 13 TCA notice requirement to put the governmental entity on notice of a potential 14 claim.” 15 {16} Respondents argue for affirming the Court of Appeals, asserting that, 16 compared to the subsequent complaint, “[t]here was no ‘different’ time, place or 17 circumstance of injury as to the City[’s] negligence” alleged in the Notice. 18 Respondents point to the Notice’s references to V.M.’s death “on August 24, 2016[,] 19 . . . in the City of Albuquerque,” which occurred “after the [State, the County, and [9] 1 the City] generally engaged in tortious conduct and circumstances leading to injury 2 and death of [V.M.].” Respondents argue these references alone satisfied Section 41- 3 4-16(A) and aligned with the general negligence claims against the City in 4 Respondents’ complaint. Respondents highlight the Notice’s claims that the City 5 “generally engaged in tortious conduct” as distinct from the Notice’s claims of 6 negligent supervision “explicitly directed [against] the other [governmental] 7 entities,” arguing the district court and the City indulged a false premise by 8 misreading negligent supervision as a claim against the City. 9 {17} At its core, the City asserts the Notice is critically different from Respondents’ 10 complaint in identifying the time, place, and circumstance of the loss or injury and 11 this alleged difference frustrates the purposes of the TCA notice requirement. As we 12 discuss, the City fails to demonstrate such a critical difference exists. 13 {18} Importantly, the City misrepresents the relevant allegations by stating the 14 Notice “only provided notice” relating to negligent supervision. Instead, the Notice 15 clearly alleges the City “generally engaged in tortious conduct and circumstances 16 leading to injury and death of [V.M.]” and “claims may be brought regarding the 17 negligence of the . . . City of Albuquerque which resulted in the death of [V.M.] on 18 or about August 24, 2016.” The City neither acknowledges these broader claims of 19 negligence nor explains how they were insufficient to relevantly alert the City to [10] 1 potential litigation. While negligent supervision, “fail[ure] to properly monitor 2 [V.M.’s] alleged killer,” was specified in the subject line of the Notice, that claim 3 named governmental entities other than the City; implicitly, inclusion of negligent 4 supervision in the body text remained directed against those other entities and did 5 not negate the broader and distinct claims of negligence against the City. Thus, as 6 the Court of Appeals concluded, the district court erred in deeming the references to 7 negligent supervision as rendering the Notice insufficient. See Martens, 2023- 8 NMCA-037, ¶ 7 (“Despite the references to probation monitoring, however, the City 9 was made aware that a claim could be brought based on the crime committed against 10 V.M. and associated negligence and tortious conduct leading to that crime.”). The 11 City fails to address this conclusion and instead mimics the district court’s unduly 12 limited reading of the Notice in this regard. 13 {19} The complaint filed by Respondents does not provide a description of time, 14 place, and circumstance “completely different” from that provided in the Notice. The 15 complaint includes claims that a CYFD report of allegations of sexual violence 16 against V.M. was referred to the City and that APD “made the decision to not 17 investigate” those allegations contrary to the Department’s responsibility under 18 Section 32A-4-3(C) of the Abuse and Neglect Act. While these and related claims [11] 1 are certainly more specific than the Notice’s allegations against the City, they share 2 the same nature of being claims of general negligence. 3 {20} Cummings supports the proposition that the TCA written notice standard is 4 satisfied by a correlation between the allegations in a written notice and allegations 5 in a lawsuit’s complaint. In Cummings, the plaintiffs’ notice affidavit included 6 specific information relating to diagnosis, treatment, the relevant physician, and the 7 patient’s death that correlated to complaints in the existing class-action lawsuits 8 which the plaintiffs joined. See 2019-NMCA-034 , ¶¶ 17-18. However, nothing in 9 Cummings establishes the minimum correlation that must exist between a written 10 notice and a complaint to satisfy Section 41-4-16(A). Stated differently, the degree 11 of specificity in the Cummings notice affidavit demonstrated a sufficient but not 12 necessary level of correlation. 13 {21} Regardless, the City has not shown a lack of correlation. By relying on a 14 noncredible characterization of the Notice—that it only provided notice regarding 15 negligent supervision—the City has not shown a critical difference between the 16 Notice and the complaint. 17 2. The City does not show Section 41-4-16 requires specificity greater than 18 the Notice provided 19 {22} The City argues a claimant under Section 41-4-16 must include “relevant 20 facts” regarding the time, place, and circumstance of the injury. The City asserts that, [12] 1 because Cummings quoted Maestas v. Zager, 2007-NMSC-003 , 141 N.M. 154 , 152 2 P.3d 141 , for the proposition that accrual of the TCA notice requirement is triggered 3 by a claimant’s knowledge of relevant facts, “it is evident that a [TCA] notice must 4 contain the time, place, and circumstances that fall within the scope of Rule 11-401 5 NMRA.” See Cummings, 2019-NMCA-034 , ¶¶ 23-24; see also Rule 11-401 6 (governing the admissibility of evidence based on relevance). The City further 7 construes Cummings as “suggest[ing] that the notice pleading standard [for a civil 8 complaint under Rule 1-008 NMRA] is similar [to] or the same as what is required 9 for a sufficient Section 41-4-16 written notice.” Under this reading of Cummings and 10 Maestas, the City asserts the Court of Appeals erred in “conclud[ing] that the 11 sufficiency of a written notice is limited to what is stated in Section 41-4-16(A).” 12 {23} Respondents answer with three arguments: (1) that Cummings cited Maestas 13 regarding timeliness of a TCA notice, “not the sufficiency of what is required”; (2) 14 that the Legislature did not require particularized facts in a written TCA notice; and 15 (3) that a written TCA notice “cannot be held to a specificity requirement higher 16 than that of a civil complaint” under Rule 1-008. Respondents relatedly reason 17 requiring greater specificity “would put an enormous burden on claimants who have 18 had fewer than ninety days to recover from an injury and consult legal counsel all 19 without the benefit of any formal discovery.” [13] 1 {24} The City misreads and misapplies Cummings. As Respondents correctly note, 2 the Cummings Court cited Maestas solely in the context of timeliness of a TCA 3 notice, and nothing in Cummings suggests a “relevant facts” requirement pursuant 4 to Rule 11-401 for a written TCA notice. As we have discussed, the specificity in 5 the Cummings notice affidavit was sufficient to satisfy Section 41-4-16(A) and 6 should not be read as necessary. See 2019-NMCA-034 , ¶ 21 (“[W]ritten notice under 7 the TCA [was] satisfied.”). Further, the Cummings Court’s recitation of the purpose 8 of the TCA notice requirement—“to ensure that the agency allegedly at fault is 9 notified that it may be subject to a lawsuit and to reasonably alert the agency to the 10 necessity of investigating the merits of the potential claim against it”—does not 11 suggest the time, place, and circumstance requirement in Section 41-4-16(A) bears 12 a relationship to the notice pleading standard. 4 Id. ¶ 21 (internal quotation marks and 13 citation omitted). [4] Even if it did, under our notice pleading standard, as Respondents highlight, “general allegations of conduct are sufficient,” Zamora v. St. Vincent Hosp., 2014NMSC-035, ¶ 16, 335 P.3d 1243 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and “it is sufficient that defendants be given only a fair idea of the nature of the claim asserted against them sufficient to apprise them of the general basis of the claim; specific evidentiary detail is not required at th[e complaint] stage of the pleadings,” Petty v. Bank of N.M. Holding Co., 1990-NMSC-021 , ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 524 , 787 P.2d 443 . [14] 1 {25} In short, the City presents no authority for its claim that the Court of Appeals 2 erred when it concluded, “The written notice required by Section 41-4-16(A) is 3 limited to the time, place, and circumstances of the loss or injury. Nothing more is 4 required.” Martens, 2023-NMCA-037 , ¶ 6 (internal quotation marks and citation 5 omitted). Accordingly, the City does not establish a higher standard under which the 6 Notice would be deficient for lack of relevant facts, such as “not mention[ing] a 7 time-period other than the date of V.M.’s death; or any City of Albuquerque 8 employee; or any alleged tortious conduct by a City employee; or any witnesses of 9 the alleged tortious conduct by the City; or any place or circumstance of the alleged 10 tortious conduct.” 11 {26} We agree with the City that the purposes of the notice requirement must be 12 fulfilled, as discussed next. However, the City presents no basis for us to further 13 define the degree of specificity required by Section 41-4-6(A). 14 3. The City does not show the Court of Appeals failed to consider the 15 legislative purposes of Section 41-4-16 16 {27} Pointing to the four legislative purposes of the TCA notice requirement 17 articulated in Ferguson, the City asserts the Court of Appeals “readily disregarded” 18 those purposes and “conclud[ed] that the[y] . . . are not relevant.” The City appears 19 to suggest the Court of Appeals erred in not expressly analyzing the Notice under [15] 1 those purposes and thereby set an improperly low standard that “renders the Section 2 41-4-16(A) written notice requirement meaningless.” 3 {28} Respondents argue the legislative purposes noted in Ferguson were fulfilled 4 where the Notice “enable[d] the City to notify its insurance carrier, contact APD, 5 investigate its involvement in [V.M.’s] sexual assault and murder, and analyze its 6 policies and procedures to see if there were violations or exposure to litigation by 7 way of paying the claim.” 8 {29} The City again misreads authority. First, the Court of Appeals quoted 9 Ferguson for the four legislative purposes of the TCA notice provision, which we 10 reiterate: 11 “(1) to enable the person or entity to whom notice must be given, or its 12 insurance company, to investigate the matter while the facts are 13 accessible; (2) to question witnesses; (3) to protect against simulated or 14 aggravated claims; and (4) to consider whether to pay the claim or to 15 refuse it.” 16 Martens, 2023-NMCA-037 , ¶ 5 (quoting Ferguson, 1982-NMCA-180 , ¶ 12). 17 Importantly, the Court of Appeals distinguished the district court’s misreading of the 18 Notice, as previously discussed, and properly did not analyze that misreading under 19 the legislative purposes. Id. ¶ 5. That the Court of Appeals did not give credence to 20 the district court’s misreading does not suggest the purposes themselves were 21 ignored by the Court. To the contrary, the Court implicitly considered those purposes [16] 1 in its conclusion two paragraphs later: “the City was made aware that a claim could 2 be brought based on the crime committed against V.M. and associated negligence 3 and tortious conduct leading to that crime.” Id. ¶ 7. Second, the Court of Appeals 4 properly placed Ferguson in the context in which it was decided. Ferguson did not 5 analyze the plaintiffs’ compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 41-4- 6 16; instead, the Ferguson Court considered whether the ninety-day limitations 7 period violated due process protections. See Martens, 2023-NMCA-037 , ¶ 8 (citing 8 Ferguson, 1982-NMCA-180 , ¶¶ 3, 11, 14). The Court of Appeals’ rejection of the 9 City’s position pertained to the City’s use of Ferguson, not to the legislative 10 purposes articulated in Ferguson. In short, the City has failed to explain how the 11 Court of Appeals’ consideration of the legislative purposes in their proper context 12 constituted error. 13 {30} We consider it self-evident in our jurisprudence that statutes should not be 14 construed in ways that frustrate legislative purposes. Cf. Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. 15 N.M. Fed’n of Tchrs., 1998-NMSC-020, ¶ 28 , 125 N.M. 401 , 962 P.2d 1236 (“The 16 principal objective in the judicial construction of statutes is to determine and give 17 effect to the intent of the [L]egislature.” (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted)). As the Ferguson Court expressed in relation to the particular legislative 19 purposes of the notice requirement, “Determination of what is reasonably necessary [17] 1 for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the general public is a 2 legislative function and should not be interfered with absent clear abuse.” 1982- 3 NMCA-180, ¶ 12 (citing State v. Collins, 1956-NMSC-046 , ¶ 8, 61 N.M. 184 , 297 4 P.2d 325 ). The City has not met its burden to show the Court of Appeals erred in 5 this regard. 6 4. The City does not show the need to apply actual notice cases to determine 7 the standard for a written TCA notice 8 {31} The City quotes City of Las Cruces v. Garcia for the proposition that 9 Subsections (A) and (B) of 41-4-16, respectively providing requirements for written 10 notice and actual notice, share the same purpose: “to ensure that the agency allegedly 11 at fault is notified that it may be subject to a lawsuit.” City of Las Cruces, 1984- 12 NMSC-106, ¶ 5, 102 N.M. 25 , 690 P.2d 1019 (internal quotation marks and citation 13 omitted). From this shared purpose, the City reasons actual notice cases are 14 precedential in considering the standard for whether a written notice satisfies Section 15 41-4-16(A). Specifically, the City points to Marrujo, in which this Court held two 16 Uniform Accident Reports to be insufficient as actual notice to the state where the 17 reports 18 offered no suggestion that a tort had occurred or that a lawsuit was 19 impending. There was nothing in the reports to distinguish th[e] case 20 from the many other traffic fatalities in New Mexico in which the [s]tate 21 is blameless and the driver or a private party is completely at fault. The 22 reports served a purely statistical function. [1] 1994-NMSC-116 , ¶ 25. The City asserts “the vague and general nature of [the 2 Notice], like the accident reports discussed in Marrujo, make it indistinguishable so 3 as to put the City reasonably on notice of the alleged tortious conduct” in 4 Respondents’ complaint. Based on this reading of legislative intent underlying 5 Subsections (A) and (B) of 41-4-16, the City concludes the Court of Appeals erred 6 in ruling the Notice satisfied the written TCA notice requirement. 7 {32} Respondents reply Marrujo is inapposite in that the police reports there 8 “offered no suggestion that a tort had occurred or that a lawsuit was impending,” 9 Marrujo, 1994-NMSC-116 , ¶ 25, while here, Respondents “provided timely written 10 notice of a potential claim.” 11 {33} While the City’s citation of City of Las Cruces regarding the shared purpose 12 of Subsections (A) and (B) of 41-4-16 is germane, the City’s argument under 13 Marrujo fails on three fronts. First, that shared purpose applied here would be to 14 ensure the City was notified it may be subject to a lawsuit. Contrary to the City’s 15 argument, the Notice clearly accomplished this purpose. The City does not explain 16 how a “Notice of Claims Resulting in Injury/Death per [Section 41-4-16]” does not 17 alert the receiver of a potential lawsuit. In its title alone, the Notice’s clear relation 18 to potential litigation stands in stark contrast to the accident reports in Marrujo, 19 which “offered no suggestion that a tort had occurred or that a lawsuit was [19] 1 impending.” 1994-NMSC-116 , ¶ 25. Second, Marrujo’s discussion of other cases 2 does not demonstrate more detail is necessary to satisfy actual notice under Section 3 41-4-16(B) than was provided in the Notice. See, e.g., id. ¶ 27 (“[U]nder some 4 circumstances, a police or other report could serve as actual notice under [S]ection 5 41-4-16(B), but only where the report contains information which puts the 6 governmental entity allegedly at fault on notice that there is a claim against it.” 7 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting City of Las Cruces, 1984-NMSC-106 , ¶ 8 6)). Third, in comparing the Notice to the Marrujo reports, the City characterizes the 9 Notice as similarly “indistinguishable” but provides no explanation as to what it is 10 indistinguishable from. The Marrujo Court made clear the reports there did not 11 distinguish the plaintiffs’ accident from the many other traffic fatalities that do not 12 involve lawsuits against the state, while here, the City offers no object for a parallel 13 comparison. To the extent the City merely implies the Notice is too vague and 14 general, that position has been addressed. 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 {34} Respondents’ Notice was sufficient under Section 41-4-16(A) of the TCA. 17 The City failed to show the Court of Appeals erred either in determining the proper 18 standard for a written TCA notice or in evaluating the Notice under that standard. 19 Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals. [20] 1 {35} IT IS SO ORDERED. [2] 3 C. SHANNON BACON, Justice 4 WE CONCUR: [5] 6 DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice [7] 8 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice [9] 10 JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice [11] 12 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice