Lopez V Jensenlopez
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
_______________________
SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF
ALLEGRA HANSON, ALLEGRA HANSON P.C., and
COMPA INDUSTRIES, Inc.,
Defendants.
_______________________
SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF
ARMANDO RENE LOPEZ, COMPA INDUSTRIES, Inc.,
and STRATIFY, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________
SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-986 KWR/LF
ASHLEY CHENOT, COMPA INDUSTRIES, Inc., and
STRATIFY, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________
SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF
BRYANT BINGHAM, COMPA INDUSTRIES, Inc., and
STRATIFY, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________
SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF
DANIEL ANTHONY JENSENLOPEZ, COMPA INDUSTRIES, Inc., and
STRATIFY, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________
SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF
EDNA LOUISA LOPEZ, COMPA INDUSTRIES, Inc., and
STRATIFY, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________
SAMUEL RENE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:24-cv-991 KWR/LF
KAREN MONTY, COMPA INDUSTRIES, Inc., and
STRATIFY, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on orders to show cause issued in the following
cases:
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Allegra Hanson, Allegra Hanson PC, and Compa Industries, Inc.,
1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Armando Rene Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC.,
1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Ashley Chenot, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC., 1:24-cv-
986 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Bryant Bingham, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC., 1:24-
cv-987 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Daniel Anthony Jensenlopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC,
1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-
990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.); and
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Karen Monty, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-991
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
In each case Plaintiff brings state law claims relating to his employment and termination at
Compa Industries, Inc., his family’s business. In all seven cases identified above the Court issued
an order to show cause why they should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As explained in the orders to show cause, Plaintiff did not assert any federal claims, and he failed
to plead facts to support diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts which
establish subject matter jurisdiction in his complaint. The Court directed him to show cause why
the Court should not dismiss each case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff timely filed
responses to the orders to show cause in each case. After considering the responses, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff failed to plead factual allegations establishing subject matter jurisdiction
in his amended complaints. He also failed to carry his burden to assert facts establishing subject
matter jurisdiction in his responses to the orders to show cause. Therefore, the Court dismisses all
seven cases without prejudice for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Alternatively, even assuming he established subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff failed to state a claim as to each of the seven cases.
The Court issues this consolidated opinion in all seven cases identified in the caption above.
BACKGROUND
Each of these seven cases stems from his employment or dealings with Compa Industries,
Inc. as a business development administrator in July 2019 through his alleged termination in
February 2021. Compa Industries is his family’s business, and he asserts a number of grievances
against family members, or employees or officers of Compa Industries. He asserts fraud,
conspiracy, conversion, battery, and racketeering state law claims against various individuals. He
generally names Compa Industries and Stratify LLC as liable under respondeat superior principles
for the actions of their various employees, officers, or board members.
Plaintiff previously brought claims arising from similar disputes in Lopez v. Compa
Industries, Inc., 23-cv-303 JB/LF (D.N.M.). That case included federal claims, including Title VII,
ADA, and RICO claims. The Honorable James O. Browning dismissed the federal claims for
failure to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL
3518015 (10th Cir. July 24, 2024).
I. Plaintiff’s allegations in his seven cases.
The Court summarizes the allegations in Plaintiff’s seven cases below.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Allegra Hanson, Allegra Hanson P.C., and Compa Industries,
Inc., 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that Allegra Hanson was counsel for Compa Industries, Inc. during
Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff appears to allege that Allegra Hanson aided other individuals in
committing fraud and aided in his wrongful termination. Plaintiff asserts fraud and conspiracy
claims relating to the (1) request for him to assist in recruiting for Stratify LLC and in (2) the
termination of his job to assist Defendant Compa Industries in acquiring the Small Business
Administration’s HUBZone certification. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Allegra Hanson
committed fraud in failing to advise Compa Industries to independently audit the work of another
employee, Daniel Jensenlopez, who Plaintiff alleges stole money from the company. Plaintiff also
alleged a state-law racketeering claim based on the same allegations. Plaintiff alleges that Compa
Industries, Inc. is vicariously liable because it employed Allegra Hanson as counsel.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Armando Rene Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC,
1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Armando Lopez was the Chief Information Officer for
Compa Industries and worked for Stratify LLC. Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Lopez et al., 1: 24-
cv-985 KWR/LF, Doc. 13 at ¶¶ 2, 4 (D.N.M.). Plaintiff alleges that after his contract was breached
by CEO Edna Lopez, Armando Lopez took his job. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. He also alleges that Defendant
Armando Lopez stole and destroyed evidence in the form of Compa Industries paperwork and
digital data from his phone in February 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Armando Lopez committed
fraud, conversion and destruction of evidence. Plaintiff asserts that Compa Industries and Stratify
LLC are liable under principles of respondeat superior.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Ashley Chenot, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC, 1:24-
cv-986 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that Ashley Chenot, while working in her capacity as a payroll manager
for Compa Industries, did not report his earnings to any state, which caused him to lose out on
unemployment benefits. He alleges that his wages were not reported until September or October
2021, months after his termination. Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Chenot, et. al., 1:24-cv-986
KWR/LF, Doc. 10 at ¶ 9 (D.N.M.). He asserts fraud and conversion claims against Ashley Chenot
and respondeat superior claims against Stratify LLC and Compa Industries, Inc.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Bryant Bingham, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC, 1:24-
cv-987 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that Bryant Bingham was the COO of Compa Industries, worked for
Stratify LLC, and was on the board of Compa Industries. Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant
Bingham conspired with others to take his job administering Compa Industries’ SBA HUBZone
account. Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Bingham, et al., 1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF, Doc. 16 at 7
(D.N.M.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bingham obtained and changed the login credentials
for his SBA HUBZone account. Plaintiff alleges fraud, conversion, and conspiracy claims against
Bingham and respondeat superior claims against Stratify LLC and Compa Industries.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Daniel Anthony Jensenlopez, Compa Industries, Inc., and
Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jensenlopez was the CFO of Compa Industries, and owner
of Stratify LLC. Plaintiff alleges multiple fraud claims. He alleges that Defendant Jensenlopez
hired him as a business development administrator to obtain contracts with the government or
otherwise assist Compa Industries in obtaining certain certifications with the government. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Jensenlopez initially refused to pay him for the five hours he spent
recruiting for the company. Plaintiff was eventually paid for his work. Plaintiff was employed or
contracted to certify Compa Industries in the SBA’s HUBZone program, which he asserts
increased the company’s value and competitiveness in obtaining “sole source” contracts and
government “set aside contracts.” Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Jensenlopez, 1:24-cv-988
KWR/LF, Doc. 13 at 10 (D.N.M.). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Jensenlopez impeded his ability
to get a certification through the SBA by denying that he received an important e-mail, by taking
his login credentials for Compa Industries’ SBA account, and by destroying a file structure for a
business proposal. Plaintiff asserts various fraud, conspiracy, and harassment claims against
Defendant Jensenlopez. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Stratify LLC and Compa Industries are
liable under respondeat superior principles.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-
cv-990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that his mother Edna Louisa Lopez owned Compa Industries, Inc. and
worked at Stratify LLC. He alleges that she committed fraud, extortion, breach of contract and
battery. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant pressured him to do the recruiting for Stratify LLC and
failed to give him equal treatment in her will. He also alleges that she breached a contract relating
to his completion of Compa Industries, Inc.’s HUBZone certification. He alleges she committed
fraud by taking away his job as administrator of Compa Industries, Inc.’s HUBZone account. He
also alleges that Stratify LLC and Compa Industries are liable for Edna Louisa Lopez’s actions
under a theory of respondeat superior.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Karen Monty, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-991
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that Karen Monty was the vice president and human resources manager
for Compa Industries, Inc. and worked for Stratify LLC. He also alleges she was a board member
of Compa Industries, Inc. Plaintiff asserts various fraud, conversion, and conspiracy claims
stemming from his termination. Plaintiff also asserts respondeat superior claims against Compa
Industries and Stratify LLC.
II. Order to Show Cause.
In all seven cases the court issued an order to show cause why the claims should not be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in each case.
Thereafter, the Court issued another order to show cause in each case, directing Plaintiff to
show cause why the Court should not dismiss each case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff timely filed responses to the order to show cause
DISCUSSION
As explained below, the Court dismisses each case without prejudice because Plaintiff
failed to plead factual allegations in his complaint establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff also failed to assert facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction in his responses to the
orders to show cause. Plaintiff has therefore failed to carry his burden to establish that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over these cases.
Alternatively, assuming the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, the Court dismisses
each case for failure to state a claim.
I. Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
A. Plaintiff failed to plead factual allegations in his complaint establishing subject
matter jurisdiction.
The Court issued orders to show cause in each case explaining that Plaintiff’s amended
complaints failed to plead factual allegations establishing subject matter jurisdiction. The orders
directed Plaintiff failed to show cause why the Court should not dismiss his seven cases for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. As explained below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to carry
his burden of pleading factual allegations in his complaint which establish subject matter
jurisdiction.
“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing such jurisdiction
as a threshold matter.” Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004).
See also Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Start with the rule that
a party invoking diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance
of the evidence.”); Markley v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 24-1163, 2025 WL 1739390, at *3 (10th
Cir. June 24, 2025).
“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists
absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction.” Dutcher v. Matheson, 733
F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013).
“Federal courts ‘have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party,’ and thus a court may sua
sponte raise the question of whether there is subject matter jurisdiction ‘at any stage in the
litigation.’ ” 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir.
2006), quoting in part Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1240, 1244, 163
L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006).
When, as here, “a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends
the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.” Rockwell Int'l
Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473-74, 127 S.Ct. 1397, 167 L.Ed.2d 190 (2007). Plaintiff’s
amended complaints fail to plead factual allegations establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims. Federal question jurisdiction “exists only when
a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Here,
Plaintiff only pleads state law claims. He does not assert any federal claims. In his responses to
the orders to show cause, Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But
Plaintiff did not plead a RICO claim. Therefore, it appears that the Court does not have federal
question jurisdiction over these cases.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s amended complaints do not establish that diversity jurisdiction exists.
In order to invoke diversity jurisdiction, “a party must show that complete diversity of citizenship
exists between the adverse parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Dutcher
v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “Complete diversity is lacking
when any of the plaintiffs has the same residency as even a single defendant.” Id.
As explained below, Plaintiff failed to identify the citizenship of every party. Even as to
the parties whose citizenship he did identify, he only asserted legal conclusions, and did not assert
factual allegations in support of those conclusions. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
amended complaints in each of his seven cases fail to demonstrate that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff must plead factual allegations in support of jurisdiction and not mere legal
conclusions. “Mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are not enough; the party pleading
jurisdiction ‘must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction.’ ” Celli v. Shoell,
40 F.3d 324, 327 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Penteco Corp. v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519,
1521 (10th Cir. 1991)); Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff cannot
“offer mere legal conclusions.”); Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 1242,
1245–46 (10th Cir. 2012) (the defendant must “prove ... jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of
the evidence” to remain in federal court). Instead, the plaintiff must allege “the underlying facts
supporting each of the requirements for [] jurisdiction.” Leite, 749 F.3d at 1122. Furthermore, the
facts alleged to show the citizenship of the party in question must satisfy the plausibility pleading
standard. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014).
Plaintiff does not identify the citizenship of many parties, and where he does, he does so
in a conclusory fashion without alleging factual allegations in support of those conclusions.
Some of the parties to these cases are individuals. An individual is a citizen of the state
where he or she is domiciled. “An individual’s residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it
is domicile that is relevant for determining citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century
Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the
person resides there and intends to remain there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d
1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). “When it comes to determining a person's domicile for diversity-
jurisdiction purposes, a district court should consider the totality of the circumstances.” Middleton
v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200–01 (10th Cir. 2014), citing Wright et al. § 3612, at 536–41
(listing “the party's current residence; voter registration and voting practices; situs of personal and
real property; location of brokerage and bank accounts; membership in unions, fraternal
organizations, churches, clubs, and other associations; place of employment or business; driver's
license and automobile registration; payment of taxes; as well as several other aspects of human
life and activity”).
Here, Plaintiff does not identify the citizenship of all individuals. In many of the complaint
he does not identify his own citizenship. Even where he does identify the citizenship of an
individual, he merely states legal conclusions and does not allege facts to show citizenship or
domicile by a preponderance of the evidence. There are no facts in the record for the Court to
apply the legal tests stated above or to determine the citizenship of the individuals.
Next, he asserts claims in all his cases against an entity, including Compa Industries, Inc.,
Stratify LLC, and Allegra Hanson, P.C. “In general, for jurisdictional citizenship, there are two
types of business organizations: corporations and unincorporated associations.” Grynberg v.
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015).
Generally, a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it has been incorporated and the
state where it has its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Tinner v. Farmers
Ins. Co., 504 F. App’x 710, 713 (10th Cir. 2012). Thus, a corporation can be a citizen of multiple
states. To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Compa Industries is a corporation, he has not alleged
facts to establish its citizenship. Plaintiff summarily alleges where the alleged corporations operate
but does not allege facts establishing where the corporations are incorporated or their principal
place of business. For example, a corporation is considered domiciled where it is incorporated and
where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), which is defined as “the place
where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. Hertz
Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). Here, there are no
facts in the record for the court to determine where the corporation’s officers direct, control and
coordinate the corporation’s activities. Similarly, Plaintiff provides no facts or evidence supporting
the place of incorporation.
Plaintiff appears to allege that Allegra Hanson, P.C. is a professional corporation. Several
circuit cases hold that a professional corporation is treated the same as any other corporation for
diversity purposes. See Hoagland ex rel. Midwest Transit, Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & von
Gontard, P.C., 385 F.3d 737, 739–43 (7th Cir. 2004) (professional corporation treated same as any
other corporation for diversity purposes); see also Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, P.C. v. Martindale–
Hubbell, Inc., 710 F.2d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 1983) (professional corporations are corporations within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. 2004)
(same). Following these circuit cases, a decision in this district has previously held that a “New
Mexico professional corporation[ ] is treated as a corporation for diversity purposes.” Whitener v.
Burnett, Civ. No. 10-865 BRB/RHS, 2010 WL 11618919, at *2 n.1 (D.N.M. Dec. 13, 2010)
(Baldock, J.) (citing Hoagland, 385 F.3d at 739–41). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged factual
allegations plausibly alleging the citizenship of Allegra Hanson, P.C., such as the place of its
incorporation or its principal place of business.
Finally, he asserts claims against Stratify LLC, which he appears to allege is an LLC. An
LLC takes the citizenship of each of its members. Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur.
Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1239 (10th Cir. 2015). “When an entity is composed of multiple layers of
constituent entities, the citizenship determination requires an exploration of the citizenship of the
constituent entities as far down as necessary to unravel fully the citizenship of the entity before the
court.” Woodward, Inc. v. Zhro Sols., LLC, No. 18-CV-01468-PAB, 2018 WL 11455060, at *2
(D. Colo. June 13, 2018); see also Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C., 781 F.3d at 1238. Plaintiff does
not identify the members of the LLCs, which could include both individuals and corporations.
Plaintiff also does not allege facts establishing the citizenship of each member of an LLC. The
Court finds that Plaintiff has not established the citizenship of each member of the LLC.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not established the citizenship of the parties in his
amended complaints. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established diversity
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff’s
amended complaints fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction, the Court dismisses all seven
cases.
B. Responses to the Orders to Show Cause.
Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause in each case. In each case he attempts to
add factual allegations to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Even assuming the Court considers
the additional facts in his orders to show cause, the additional factual allegations continue to fail
to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Allegra Hanson, Allegra Hanson PC, and Compa Industries,
1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
In Lopez v. Hanson, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to allege facts supporting
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was insufficient as it did not allege the
domicile of individuals Samuel Rene Lopez or Allegra Hanson. Moreover, it did not allege the
citizenship of Allegra Hanson, P.C., i.e. its place of incorporation and its principal place of
business. Plaintiff’s response in Lopez v. Hanson continues to fail to establish subject matter
jurisdiction. Lopez v. Hanson, 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF, Doc. 23 (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff asserts that he resides in Nevada. However, he does not allege his domicile or allege
facts demonstrating his domicile. As explained in the Order to Show Cause, “[a]n individual’s
residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for determining
citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.
2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there and intends to remain
there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiff
has only asserted that he resides in Nevada, and has not alleged his domicile. Therefore, he has not
established his citizenship.
Similarly, Plaintiff asserts that Allegra Hanson resides in New Mexico, but he does not
allege her domicile or allege facts supporting an assertion of her domicile.
As to Allegra Hanson, P.C., Plaintiff asserts that Allegra Hanson is the sole practitioner.
But Plaintiff has not asserted any facts establishing the principal place of business of the
professional corporation, as explained above. A corporation is considered domiciled where it is
incorporated and where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), which is
defined as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175 L.Ed.2d
1029 (2010). Therefore, Plaintiff has not established the citizenship of Allegra Hanson, P.C.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not
assert factual allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction in Lopez v. Hanson, 1:24-cv-984
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff also asserts in his response to the order to show cause that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims in his
Amended Complaint, and only asserts state law claims such as fraud or conspiracy. Moreover, his
federal RICO claim was dismissed in a prior case. That dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit. See Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015 (10th Cir. July 24,
2024).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction and dismisses Lopez v. Hanson, 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) without prejudice.
Lopez v. Armando Rene Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC., 1:24-cv-985
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
In Lopez v. Armando Rene Lopez, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to allege facts
supporting subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was insufficient as it did
not allege the domicile of Armando Rene Lopez. It also did not allege the citizenship of Stratify
LLC or Compa Industries, Inc., or allege any facts establishing their citizenship. Plaintiff’s
response in Lopez v. Lopez continues to fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Lopez v. Lopez,
1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF, Doc. 27 (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff asserts that he resides in Nevada. However, he does not allege his domicile or allege
facts demonstrating his domicile. As explained in the Order to Show Cause, “[a]n individual’s
residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for determining
citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.
2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there and intends to remain
there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiff
has only asserted that he resides in Nevada, and has not alleged his domicile. Therefore, he has not
established his citizenship.
Second, Plaintiff does not establish the domicile of Armando Rene Lopez. Therefore, he
has not established the citizenship of Armando Rene Lopez.
Third, Plaintiff alleges that Stratify LLC is a limited liability company. The Court set forth
in detail the requirements for pleading the citizenship of an LLC and its members in the order to
show cause. In his response, Plaintiff has not identified the members of Stratify LLC or the
citizenship of the members of Stratify LLC, as explained above.
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged the principal place of business of Compa Industries, Inc.,
or asserted factual allegations demonstrating the principal place of business of Compa Industries,
Inc., which is defined as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175
L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not
assert factual allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction in Lopez v. Lopez, 1:24-cv-985
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff also asserts in his response to the order to show cause that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims in his
Amended Complaint, and only asserts state law claims such as fraud or conspiracy. Moreover, his
federal RICO claim was dismissed in a prior case. That dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit. See Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015 (10th Cir. July 24,
2024).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction and dismisses Lopez v. Lopez, 1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) without prejudice.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Ashley Chenot, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC., 1:24-
cv-986 KWR/LF (D.N.M.)
In Lopez v. Chenot, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to allege facts supporting subject
matter jurisdiction. It did not allege the domicile of Ashley Chenot. Lopez v. Chenot, 1:24-cv-
986 KWR/LF, Doc. 10 (D.N.M.). It also did not allege the citizenship of Stratify LLC or Compa
Industries, Inc., or allege any facts establishing their citizenship. Plaintiff’s response in Lopez v.
Chenot, et al. continues to fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Lopez v. Chenot, 1:24-cv-
986 KWR/LF, Doc. 32 (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff asserts that he resides in Nevada. However, he does not allege his domicile or allege
facts demonstrating his domicile. As explained in the Order to Show Cause, “[a]n individual’s
residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for determining
citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.
2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there and intends to remain
there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiff
has only asserted that he resides in Nevada, and has not alleged facts demonstrating his domicile.
Therefore, he has not established his citizenship.
As to Ashley Chenot, Plaintiff has alleged a variety of states in which she has lived, but
has not asserted facts establishing her domicile. Therefore, he has not established her citizenship.
Plaintiff alleges that Stratify LLC is a limited liability company. The Court set forth in
detail the requirements for pleading the citizenship of an LLC and its members in the order to show
cause. In his response, Plaintiff has not identified the members of Stratify LLC or the citizenship
of the members of Stratify LLC, as explained above.
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged the principal place of business of Compa Industries, Inc.,
or asserted factual allegations demonstrating the principal place of business of Compa Industries,
Inc., which is defined as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175
L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not
assert factual allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction in Lopez v. Chenot, 1:24-cv-986
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff also asserts in his response to the order to show cause that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims in his
Amended Complaint, and only asserts state law claims such as fraud or conspiracy. Moreover, his
federal RICO claim was dismissed in a prior case. That dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit. See Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015 (10th Cir. July 24,
2024).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction and dismisses Lopez v. Chenot, et al., 1:24-cv-986 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) without
prejudice.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Bryant Bingham, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC.,
1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
In Lopez v. Bingham, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to allege facts supporting
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was insufficient as it did not allege the
domicile of Bryant Bingham. Lopez v. Bingham, 1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF, Doc. 16 (D.N.M.). It also
did not allege the citizenship of Stratify LLC or Compa Industries, Inc., or allege any facts
establishing their citizenship. Plaintiff did not allege any facts demonstrating his own citizenship.
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause in Lopez v. Bingham, continues to fail to establish
subject matter jurisdiction. Lopez v. Bingham, 1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF, Doc. 35 (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff asserts that he resides in Nevada. However, he does not allege his domicile or allege
facts demonstrating his domicile. As explained in the order to show cause, “[a]n individual’s
residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for determining
citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.
2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there and intends to remain
there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiff
has only asserted that he resides in Nevada, and has not alleged facts demonstrating his domicile.
Therefore, he has not established his citizenship.
Second, Plaintiff summarily asserts that Bryant Bingham is a citizen of Idaho, but does not
assert any facts demonstrating that he is domiciled there. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish
Bryant Bingham’s citizenship.
Third, Plaintiff alleges that Stratify LLC is a limited liability company. The Court set forth
in detail the requirements for pleading the citizenship of an LLC and its members in the order to
show cause. In his response, Plaintiff has not identified the members of Stratify LLC or the
citizenship of the members of Stratify LLC, as explained above.
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged the principal place of business of Compa Industries, Inc.,
or asserted factual allegations demonstrating the principal place of business of Compa Industries,
Inc., which is defined as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175
L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not
assert factual allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction in Lopez v. Bingham, 1:24-cv-987
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff also asserts in his response to the order to show cause that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims in his
Amended Complaint, and only asserts state law claims such as fraud or conspiracy. Moreover, his
federal RICO claim was dismissed in a prior case. That dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit. See Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015 (10th Cir. July 24,
2024).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction and dismisses Lopez v. Bingham, 1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) without prejudice.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Daniel Anthony Jensenlopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify,
LLC, 1:24-cv-988 KWR/ LF (D.N.M.)
In Lopez v. Jensenlopez, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to assert facts plausibly
alleging or establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was
insufficient as it did not allege the domicile or citizenship of Daniel Jensenlopez. Lopez v.
Jensenlopez, 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF, Doc. 13 (D.N.M.). It also did not allege the citizenship of
Stratify LLC or Compa Industries, Inc., or allege any facts establishing their citizenship. Plaintiff
did not allege any facts demonstrating his own citizenship. Plaintiff’s response to the order to
show cause in Lopez v. Jensenlopez continues to fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Lopez
v. Jensenlopez, 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF, Doc. 19 (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff asserts that he resides in Nevada. However, he does not allege his domicile or allege
facts demonstrating his domicile. As explained in the Order to Show Cause, “[a]n individual’s
residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it is domicile that is relevant for determining
citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.
2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there and intends to remain
there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir. 2014). Here, Plaintiff
has only asserted that he resides in Nevada, and has not alleged facts demonstrating his domicile.
Therefore, he has not established his citizenship.
Next, Plaintiff summarily asserts that Defendant Jensenlopez is a citizen of Washington
and lives in Washington. But he does not assert any facts demonstrating that he is domiciled there.
Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish Daniel Jensenlopez’s citizenship.
Plaintiff alleges that Stratify LLC is a limited liability company. The Court set forth in
detail the requirements for pleading the citizenship of an LLC and its members in the order to show
cause. In his response, Plaintiff has not identified the members of Stratify LLC or the citizenship
of the members of Stratify LLC, as explained above.
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged the principal place of business of Compa Industries, Inc.,
or asserted factual allegations demonstrating the principal place of business of Compa Industries,
Inc., which is defined as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175
L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not
assert factual allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction in Lopez v. Jensenlopez, et al., 1:24-
cv-988 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff also asserts in his response to the order to show cause that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims in his
Amended Complaint, and only asserts state law claims such as fraud or conspiracy. Moreover, his
federal RICO claim was dismissed in a prior case. That dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit. See Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015 (10th Cir. July 24,
2024).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction and dismisses Lopez v. Jensenlopez, et al., 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) without
prejudice.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-
cv-990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.)
In Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to assert facts
plausibly alleging or establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was
insufficient as it did not allege the domicile or citizenship of his mother Edna Louisa Lopez. Lopez
v. Lopez, 1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF, Doc. 10 (D.N.M.). It also did not allege the citizenship of Stratify
LLC or Compa Industries, Inc., or allege any facts establishing their citizenship. Plaintiff did not
allege any facts demonstrating his own citizenship. Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause
in Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez continues to fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Lopez v.
Lopez, 1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF, Doc. 26 (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff asserts that he resides in Nevada or is a citizen of Nevada. However, he does not
allege his domicile or allege facts demonstrating his domicile. As explained in the Order to Show
Cause, “[a]n individual’s residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it is domicile that is
relevant for determining citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d
1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there
and intends to remain there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir.
2014). Here, Plaintiff has only asserted that he resides in Nevada, and has not alleged facts
demonstrating his domicile. Therefore, he has not established his citizenship.
Next, Plaintiff summarily asserts that Defendant Edna Louisa Lopez is a citizen of New
Mexico and lives in New Mexico. But he does not assert any facts demonstrating that she is
domiciled there. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish Edna Louisa Lopez’s citizenship.
Plaintiff alleges that Stratify LLC is a limited liability company. The Court set forth in
detail the requirements for pleading the citizenship of an LLC and its members in the order to show
cause. In his response, Plaintiff has not identified the members of Stratify LLC or the citizenship
of the members of Stratify LLC, as explained above.
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged the principal place of business of Compa Industries, Inc.,
or asserted factual allegations demonstrating the principal place of business of Compa Industries,
Inc., which is defined as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175
L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not
assert factual allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction in Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, 1:24-
cv-990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff also asserts in his response to the order to show cause that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims in his
Amended Complaint, and only asserts state law claims such as fraud or conspiracy. Moreover, his
federal RICO claim was dismissed in a prior case. That dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit. See Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015 (10th Cir. July 24,
2024).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction and dismisses Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, 1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) without
prejudice.
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Karen Monty, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-991
KWR/LF (D.N.M.)
In Lopez v. Monty, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to assert facts plausibly alleging
or establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was insufficient as it
did not allege the domicile or citizenship of Karen Monty. Lopez v. Monty, 1:24-cv-991 KWR/LF,
Doc. 9 (D.N.M.). It also did not allege the citizenship of Stratify LLC or Compa Industries, Inc.,
or allege any facts establishing their citizenship. Plaintiff did not allege any facts demonstrating
his own citizenship. Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause in Lopez v. Monty continues
to fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Lopez v. Monty, 1:24-cv-991 KWR/LF, Doc. 17
(D.N.M.).
Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not establish diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff asserts that he resides in Nevada or is a citizen of Nevada. However, he does not
allege his domicile or allege facts demonstrating his domicile. As explained in the Order to Show
Cause, “[a]n individual’s residence is not equivalent to [her] domicile and it is domicile that is
relevant for determining citizenship.” Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d
1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2015). “[A] person acquires domicile in a state when the person resides there
and intends to remain there indefinitely.” Middleton v. Stephenson, 749 F.3d 1197, 1200 (10th Cir.
2014). Here, Plaintiff has only asserted that he resides in Nevada, and has not alleged facts
demonstrating his domicile. Therefore, he has not established his citizenship.
Second, Plaintiff summarily asserts that Defendant Karen Monty is a citizen of New
Mexico and lives in New Mexico. But he does not assert any facts demonstrating that she is
domiciled there. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish Karen Monty’s citizenship.
Plaintiff alleges that Stratify LLC is a limited liability company. The Court set forth in
detail the requirements for pleading the citizenship of an LLC and its members in the order to show
cause. In his response, Plaintiff has not identified the members of Stratify LLC or the citizenship
of the members of Stratify LLC, as explained above.
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged the principal place of business of Compa Industries, Inc.,
or asserted factual allegations demonstrating the principal place of business of Compa Industries,
Inc., which is defined as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate
the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192, 175
L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not
assert factual allegations establishing diversity jurisdiction in Lopez v. Monty, 1:24-cv-991
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff also asserts in his response to the order to show cause that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the RICO statute. But Plaintiff has not alleged any federal claims in his
Amended Complaint, and only asserts state law claims such as fraud or conspiracy. Moreover, his
federal RICO claim was dismissed in a prior case. That dismissal was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit. See Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015 (10th Cir. July 24,
2024).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction and dismisses Lopez v. Monty, 1:24-cv-991 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) without prejudice.
C. Conclusion.
Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. “To determine
whether a party has adequately presented facts sufficient to establish federal diversity jurisdiction,
[] courts must look to the face of the complaint, ignoring mere conclusory allegations of
jurisdiction. The party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor must allege in his pleading
the facts essential to show jurisdiction.” Spring Creek Expl. & Prod. Co., LLC v. Hess Bakken Inv.,
II, LLC, 887 F.3d 1003, 1013–14 (10th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaints failed to plead facts establishing
subject matter jurisdiction, for the reasons stated above.
The Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to establish subject matter jurisdiction, and set
forth the relevant standards in detail, in orders to show cause entered in each case. Although
Plaintiff responded, he failed to identify the citizenship of each defendant or failed to assert factual
allegations establishing their citizenship.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of pleading or
establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Lopez v. Cantex Health Care Centers II, LLC,
No. 23-2038, 2023 WL 7321637, at *5 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) (where the party with the burden
of establishing jurisdiction fails to identify the citizenship of each party or show that the court has
diversity jurisdiction, case should be remanded).
II. Alternatively, Plaintiff fails to state a claim in each case.
Assuming the court has subject matter jurisdiction, the Court alternatively concludes that
Plaintiff’s complaints continue to fail to state a claim, for the reasons stated in the prior orders to
show cause.
Plaintiff asserts New Mexico state-law claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil
conspiracy. “Conversion is the unlawful exercise of dominion and control over personal property
belonging to another in exclusion or defiance of the owner's rights, or acts constituting an
unauthorized and injurious use of another's property.” Muncey v. Eyeglass World, LLC, 2012-
NMCA-120, ¶ 22.
Plaintiff also asserts racketeering claims. “The elements of racketeering are: (1) Defendant
was associated with an enterprise; (2) while associated with this enterprise, Defendant directly or
indirectly conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise by engaging in a
pattern of racketeering activity.” New Mexico v. Armijo, 1997-NMCA-080, ¶ 23 (citing N.M.S.A.
§§ 30-42-3, -4); New Mexico v. Rael, 1999-NMCA-068, ¶ 10 (“factors to be considered in
determining the existence of an enterprise include the identity of the individuals involved, their
knowledge of the relevant activities, the amount of planning required to carry out the predicate
acts, the frequency of the acts, the time span between each act, and the existence of an identifiable
structure within the association or entity”); N.M.S.A. § 30-42-3(D) (“‘pattern of racketeering
activity’ means engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering with the intent of accomplishing
any of the prohibited activities set forth in Subsections A through D of Section 30-42-4”).
Plaintiff asserts multiple claims for fraud. “The elements of fraud include (1) a
misrepresentation of fact, (2) either knowledge of the falsity of the representation or recklessness
on the part of the party making the misrepresentation, (3) intent to deceive and to induce reliance
on the misrepresentation, and (4) detrimental reliance on the misrepresentation ... Our case law
provides, in the general sense, that a plaintiff alleging fraud may recover such damages as are the
direct and natural consequences” of the reliance on a fraudulent representation. Williams v.
Stewart, 2005-NMCA-061, ¶ 34, 112 P.3d 281. Moreover, a Plaintiff asserting a fraud claim must
satisfy a higher pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party
must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
To state a claim for civil conspiracy, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) that a conspiracy between
two or more individuals existed[,] (2) that specific wrongful acts were carried out by [Defendants]
pursuant to the conspiracy[,] and (3) that [Plaintiff was] damaged as a result of such acts.” Cain v.
Champion Window Co. of Albuquerque, LLC, 2007-NMCA-085 ¶ 28; Santa Fe Technologies, Inc.
v. Argus Networks, Inc., 2002-NMCA-030 ¶ 43 ("Civil conspiracy is an agreement to accomplish
an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means").
The Court addresses the claims in each case below.
A. Samuel Rene Lopez v. Allegra Hanson, Allegra Hanson PC, and Compa
Industries, 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF (D.N.M.)
In his amended complaint Plaintiff asserted various fraud and conspiracy claims against
Allegra Hanson, who acted as counsel for his family’s business:
Count One: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Two: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Three: Fraud/Conversion/Conspiracy
Count Four: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Five: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Six: Racketeering
Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Hanson, 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF Doc. 11 (D.N.M.). The Court issued
an order to show cause why Plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed, which noted in part as
follows:
Many of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague or conclusory. See, for example,
Complaint at 4-5, 10 (“Hanson downplayed the significance of the crime [allegedly
committed by another person];” “Hanson obfuscated the crime;” “Hanson was
instrumental in covering up this crime;” “Hanson was also a key player in the
schemes of [other persons];” “Hanson was instrumental in the breaking of the
Plaintiff’s written contract;” “Hanson was instrumental in the fraud that lead to
wrongful termination of the Plaintiff’s employment”). Vague and conclusory
allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. See Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC,
985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (“we disregard conclusory statements and
look to the remaining factual allegations to see whether Plaintiffs have stated a
plausible claim”); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County
Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal
court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific
legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”). Other allegations in the
Complaint, such as those that state Defendant acted as counsel, attended a meeting,
raised her voice and tried to intimidate Plaintiff by calling him Sammy, insulted
and disparaged Plaintiff to his mother, and ignored Plaintiffs emails, are not
sufficient to state plausible claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil
conspiracy.
Order to Show Cause, Lopez v. Hanson et al., 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF, Doc. 8 at 4-5 (D.N.M.).
Although Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in response to the order to show cause, there were
no material factual changes as to the fraud, conspiracy, conversion, and racketeering claims.
As to Count One, Plaintiff asserts that he was “extorted” by CFO Jensenlopez to recruit
“labor for his personal company, Stratify LLC in the last week of October 2019.” Amended
Complaint, Lopez v. Hanson et al., 1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF, Doc. 11 at ¶ 12 (D.N.M.). Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Allegra Hanson was brought in to “resolve” the injury. Plaintiff appears to
assert that Allegra Hanson mediated a resolution between Plaintiff and others. As explained in the
order to show cause, Plaintiff’s vague or conclusory assertions fail to assert a fraud or conspiracy
claim under Count One.
Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that Allegra Hanson “covered up” the “crime” in the “last
week of October 2019.” Id. at ¶ 16. Here, it appears that Plaintiff alleges that the fraud and
conspiracy claims occurred in October 2019. As this case was filed on September 30, 2024, these
New Mexico claims under Count One are therefore barred under the statute of limitations.
N.M.S.A. § 37-1-4 (claims brought for injuries to property, conversion of personal property and
for fraud must be brought within four years); N.M.S.A. 37-1-8 (“Actions must be brought … for
an injury to the person … within three years”).
Under Count Two, Plaintiff alleged fraud and conspiracy claims, asserting that his mother
Edna Lopez gave him, through Defendant Hanson, a copy of her will which was different than
what he expected. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hanson committed fraud by hiding the Ms.
Lopez’s current will. Plaintiff asserts that the current will was necessary to gain HUBZone
certification through the federal government. As explained in the OSC, these vague or conclusory
allegations do not establish fraud or conspiracy.
Under Count Three, Plaintiff alleged fraud, conversion, and conspiracy claims. He asserts
that he had a contract dispute with his mother, Edna Lopez. He alleges that Ms. Lopez fraudulently
deprived him of the benefit of the contract. Allegra Hanson, acting as Ms. Lopez’s counsel, met
with Plaintiff regarding the contractual dispute. Plaintiff alleged that according to her counsel
Defendant Hanson, Ms. Lopez did not have to honor the alleged contract. Here, Plaintiff’s vague
and conclusory pleadings are insufficient to plausibly allege a fraud, conversion, or conspiracy
claim under Count Three.
Under Count Four, Plaintiff asserted fraud and conspiracy claims. He asserts he was
approached by Karen Monty and Edna Lopez to complete software in which Jensenlopez invested
$750,000 of the company’s money. Plaintiff concluded that the software was a “fraudulent scam.”
Id. at ¶ 55. Plaintiff alleges that he pushed for CFO Jensenlopez to be audited. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Allegra Hanson covered up the “crimes” of Defendant Jensenlopez. Id. Plaintiff
only alleged vague or conclusory allegations and did not plead factual allegations plausibly
alleging fraud or conspiracy.
Under Count Five, Plaintiff asserted fraud and conspiracy claims. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Hanson was complicit in a scheme to defraud the federal government, but does not
assert factual allegations supporting the alleged fraud or conspiracy.
Finally, under Count Six Plaintiff asserts a state-law racketeering claim. “The elements of
racketeering are: (1) Defendant was associated with an enterprise; (2) while associated with this
enterprise, Defendant directly or indirectly conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs
of the enterprise by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.” New Mexico v. Armijo, 1997-
NMCA-080, ¶ 23 (citing N.M.S.A. §§ 30-42-3, -4); New Mexico v. Rael, 1999-NMCA-068, ¶ 10
(“factors to be considered in determining the existence of an enterprise include the identity of the
individuals involved, their knowledge of the relevant activities, the amount of planning required
to carry out the predicate acts, the frequency of the acts, the time span between each act, and the
existence of an identifiable structure within the association or entity”). Section 30-42-3 lists
multiple racketeering activities, which are crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year. N.M.S.A. § 30-42-3(A)(1)-(33); N.M.S.A. § 30-42-3(D) (“‘pattern of racketeering activity’
means engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering with the intent of accomplishing any of
the prohibited activities set forth in Subsections A through D of Section 30-42-4”). Plaintiff
summarily alleged that: “Hanson protected the schemes of Edna Lopez, Daniel Jensenlopez, and
Karen Monty that injure the Plaintiff in the above frauds and extortion”, “Hanson Covered up the
extortion the Plaintiff suffered”, etc. Am. Compl., Doc. 11 at ¶¶ 76-88. As explained in the OSC,
these statements are vague and conclusory, and do not establish a plausible state-law racketeering
claim, including that an enterprise existed, that Defendant Hanson was associated with an
enterprise, or that Defendant Hanson conducted the affairs of the enterprise by engaging in a
pattern of racketeering activity.1 Many of the alleged acts are not racketeering activities under the
state statute cited above, and Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that Defendant Hanson committed
fraud.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Allegra Hanson, P.C. and Compa Industries, Inc. are
liable under respondeat superior principles. “Under basic respondeat superior principles, an
employer is liable for an employee's torts committed within the scope of his or her employment.”
Ocana v. Am. Furniture Co., 2004–NMSC–018, ¶ 29, 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d 58. The act of an
employee is within the scope of employment if
1. It was something fairly and naturally incidental to the employer's business
assigned to the employee, and
2. It was done while the employee was engaged in the employer's business with the
view of furthering the employer's interest and did not arise entirely from some
external, independent and personal motive on the part of the employee.
UJI 13–407 NMRA. “[A]n employer is not generally liable for an employee's intentional torts
because an employee who intentionally injures another individual is generally considered to be
acting outside the scope of his or her employment.” Ocana, 2004–NMSC–018, ¶ 29, 135 N.M.
539, 91 P.3d 58l; Spurlock v. Townes, 2016-NMSC-014, ¶ 13. The Amended Complaint fails to
state claims against Allegra Hanson P.C. and Compa Industries Inc. because the Amended
Complaint fails to state claims against Defendant Hanson.
B. Samuel Rene Lopez v. Armando Rene Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., and
Stratify, LLC., 1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
1 The Tenth Circuit addressed and rejected similar RICO claims asserted by Plaintiff against
Defendants in a prior case. See, e.g. Lopez v. Compa Indus., Inc., No. 24-2041, 2024 WL 3518015,
at *4 (10th Cir. July 24, 2024) (“For example, Lopez's complaint alleges that his brother committed
wire fraud by sabotaging an application that Lopez submitted seeking a particular government
certification for Compa, but he never describes the actual false representation his brother made at
this time or how his brother intended to obtain money or property as a result.”)
Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Defendant Armando Lopez, who he alleges
was the Chief Information Officer for Compa Industries, Inc.:
Count One: Fraud, Conversion and Conspiracy
Count Two: Theft and Destruction of Evidence
Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Lopez et al., 1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF, Doc. 13 (D.N.M.). In an Order
to Show Cause, the Court recited the relevant standards and the elements of the claims and stated
in part as follows:
Some of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague or conclusory. See, for example,
Complaint at 5-8 (Lopez “cooperated, colluded and conspired with Edna Lopez, to
steal the job and work created from the fruits of the Plaintiff’s labor;” “Lopez
cooperated, colluded, and conspired in the above claims in a racketeering scheme
to steal the fruits of the Plaintiff’s labor and job from him”). Vague and conclusory
allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. See Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC,
985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (“we disregard conclusory statements and
look to the remaining factual allegations to see whether Plaintiffs have stated a
plausible claim”); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County
Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal
court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific
legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”). Other allegations in the
Complaint, such as those that Defendant Lopez did not stick up for Plaintiff, tried
to defame Plaintiff, and stole Plaintiff’s job, are not sufficient to state plausible
claims for racketeering, fraud and civil conspiracy.
Id., Doc. 6 at 4-5. In response to the OSC, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. However, the
amended complaint did not make material changes to the factual allegations. As explained below,
the Court concludes that the amended complaint continues to fail to state a claim, for the reasons
stated in the order to show cause.
Under Count One, Plaintiff alleges fraud, conversion, and conspiracy claims. He asserts
that Armando Lopez “took his job while his contract was breached and in negotiations with Edna
Lopez and Daniel Jensenlopez” over May 2020 through February 2021. Id. at ¶ 25. As explained
in the OSC, Plaintiff only pled vague or conclusory allegations and has not alleged facts which
plausibly state a claim. It is unclear how any acts by Defendant Armando Loepz constitute fraud,
conspiracy, or conversion.
Under Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that while Plaintiff was staying at Armando Lopez’s
house, Armando Lopez wiped data from his phone or destroyed his physical papers. Plaintiff
asserts conversion and destruction of evidence claims.
First, Plaintiff has not asserted facts plausibly alleging a spoliation claim. New Mexico
recognizes the tort of intentional spoliation of evidence. See Gcm, Inc. v. Ky. Cent. Life Ins. Co.,
1997-NMSC-052, at ¶ 16, 124 N.M. 186, 947 P.2d 143 (N.M. 1997) (citing Coleman v. Eddy
Potash, Inc., 1995-NMSC-063, 120 N.M. 645, 905 P.2d 185 (N.M. 1995) (recognizing intentional
spoliation of evidence), overruled on other grounds by Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc.,
2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148 (N.M. 2001)). The Coleman case outlines the
elements of spoliation as follows:
(1) the existence of a potential lawsuit; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the
potential lawsuit; (3) the destruction, mutilation, or significant alteration of
potential evidence; (4) intent on part of the defendant to disrupt or defeat the
lawsuit; (5) a causal relationship between the act of spoliation and the inability to
prove the lawsuit; and (6) damages.
Coleman, 1995-NMSC-70, at ¶ 13 cf. UJI § 13-1650 NMRA (“Spoliation of Evidence”). Here,
Plaintiff has not asserted facts plausibly alleging a spoliation claim. He has not stated factual
allegations explaining what potential evidence was destroyed, a causal relationship between the
act of spoliation and the inability to prove the lawsuit, or damages. Moreover, he appears to allege
that he recovered the data deleted from his phone. Amended Complaint, Exhibit A, Doc. 13-1 at
3. Thus, Plaintiff’s spoliation claim is dismissed.
Second, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a conversion claim. He has not asserted facts
stating what documents or data was taken from him. Moreover, he appears to assert that the papers
taken from him belonged to Compa Industries. Id. He appears to allege that he recovered the data
deleted from his phone. Id.
Finally, Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claims against Stratify LLC and Compa Industries
fail because the underlying claims against Defendant Lopez fail. Moreover, Plaintiff has not
shown why Defendants Compa Industries, Inc. and Stratify, LLC should be liable under
respondeat superior principles for the alleged intentional tort of theft.
C. Samuel Rene Lopez v. Chenot, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC., 1:24-
cv-986 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ashley Chenot was working as a payroll manager for
Compa Industries and she initially did not report his earnings to any state. Plaintiff alleges that
she reported his wages in July 2021 or September 2021. Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Chenot,
1:24-cv-986 KWR/LF, Doc. 10 at ¶9 (D.N.M.). Plaintiff alleges that this failure to report his wages
resulted in denial of his unemployment benefits for eight months. Id. at ¶ 12. In his Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims:
Count One: Fraud
Count Two: Mail Fraud /Conversion
Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Chenot, 1:24-cv-986 KWR/LF, Doc. 10 (D.N.M.).
The Court issued an order to show cause directing Plaintiff to show cause why the Court
should not dismiss his claims for failure to state a claim. The Court noted in part as follows:
Some of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague or conclusory. See, for example, doc. 1 at
4-5 (“Chenot’s gross negligence led to the denial of Plaintiff’s unemployment
benefits;” “Chenot did not do this part of her job, at all, for around 578 days since
the Plaintiff was first employed with Compa Industries;” “Chenot injured the
Plaintiff in cooperation, collusion, and conspiracy with her superior”). Vague and
conclusory allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. See Brooks, 985 F.3d at
1281 (“[W]e disregard conclusory statements and look to the remaining factual
allegations to see whether Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim.”); Nasious v.
Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158,
1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain
what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the
defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.”). Other allegations in the Complaint, such as those
that state Defendant Chenot did not report Plaintiff’s earning to any state, lied in
emails she sent to Plaintiff, and was promoted to Human Resources Manager, are
not sufficient to state plausible claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil
conspiracy.
Order to Show Cause, Lopez v. Chenot, 1:24-cv-986 KWR/LF, Doc. 6 at 6 (D.N.M.).
Under Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chenot failed to submit his earnings to
any state until July 2021 or September 2021, after his employment ended. He asserts this impeded
his ability to obtain unemployment benefits. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations do not
assert a fraud claim.
Next, Plaintiff asserts mail fraud and conversion claims under Count Two. It is unclear
what type of claim Plaintiff asserts as a “mail fraud” claim under Count Two. The Court interprets
Plaintiff’s “mail fraud” claim as a state law fraud claim, as an individual may not assert a federal
mail fraud claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. “[C]riminal statutes do not provide for private civil
causes of action.” Kelly v. Rockefeller, 69 F. App’x. 414, 415-416 (10th Cir. 2003); see Diamond
v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986) (“a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chenot committed
fraud and conversion by (1) delaying reporting his wages to Nevada, which impeded his ability to
collect unemployment and (2) falsely telling him over e-mail that his wages were reported to
Nevada on July 5, 2021 when they were not. Plaintiff’s allegations simply continue to be vague
and conclusory, as explained in the order to show cause, and otherwise do not state a fraud or
conversion claim.
Plaintiff also asserts that Compa Industries, Inc. and Stratify LLC are liable under a theory
of respondeat superior. As explained in the order to show cause, the amended complaint fails to
state claims against Compa Industries and Stratify LLC because the amended complaint fails to
state a claim against Defendant Chenot. Id., Doc. 6 at 7.
D. Samuel Rene Lopez v. Bryant Bingham, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify,
LLC., 1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff asserted various fraud, conspiracy, and conversion
claims against Bryant Bingham, who acted as Chief Operating Officer for his family’s business:
Count One: Fraud, Conspiracy, and Conversion
Count Two: Fraud, Conspiracy, and Conversion
Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Bingham, 1:24-cv-987 KWR/LF, Doc. 16 (D.N.M.). The Court
issued an Order to Show Cause, in which it set forth the elements of these claims and explained
that his allegations were vague and conclusory. The Order to Show cause explained in part as
follows:
Many of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague or conclusory. See, for example,
Complaint at 1, 5-6 (“Bingham conspired and colluded with Daniel Jensenlopez to
steal the Plaintiff’s job, using a series of frauds;” “Bingham stole the Plaintiff’s
job;” “[Plaintiff’s] contract was breached and converted by Bingham;” “Bingham
colluded and racketed the Plaintiff’s job and breached his contract via conversion,
conspiracy, and fraud with [other persons]”). Vague and conclusory allegations are
not sufficient to state a claim. See Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d
1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (“we disregard conclusory statements and look to the
remaining factual allegations to see whether Plaintiffs have stated a plausible
claim”); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice
Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court,
a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific
legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”). Other allegations in the
Complaint, such as those that state Defendant witnessed Plaintiff’s work, failed to
acquire a contract at Los Alamos, took Plaintiff’s job, allowed another person to
avoid internal audits and breached a contract, are not sufficient to state plausible
claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil conspiracy.
Id., Doc. 9 at 4. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, but did not make material changes to the
factual allegations relevant to the claims below. As explained in the order to show cause, Plaintiff’s
amended complaint continues to fail to state a claim.
Under Count One, Plaintiff asserts fraud, conspiracy, and conversion claims. Plaintiff
alleges that he had a job or contract with Compa Industries to obtain an SBA HUBZone
certification for Compa Industries. He asserts he administered Compa Industries’ HUB account.
He asserts that Defendant Bingham and Jensenlopez, who worked at Compa Industries, obtained
the login credentials for that account by falsely stating that a contract officer requested the login
credentials. These vague or conclusory allegations do not state a claim for fraud, conversion, or
conspiracy. For example, “[c]onversion is the unlawful exercise of dominion and control over
personal property belonging to another in exclusion or defiance of the owner's rights, or acts
constituting an unauthorized and injurious use of another's property.” Muncey v. Eyeglass World,
LLC, 2012-NMCA-120, ¶ 22. Plaintiff has also not alleged that Defendants exercised control over
Plaintiff’s personal property – the login credentials for Compa Industries’ SBA HUBZone account.
Under Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Bingham “took the Plaintiff’s job” at Compa
Industries which resulted in his “wrongful termination.” Id., Amended Complaint, Doc. 16 at ¶¶
23-24. These vague or conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim for fraud, conversion,
or conspiracy.
Because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bingham fail, his respondeat superior claims
against Compa Industries and Stratify LLC also fail.
E. Samuel Rene Lopez v. Daniel Anthony Jensenlopez, Compa Industries, Inc.,
Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-988 KWR/ LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Defendant Daniel Jensenlopez, who he alleges
was the Chief Finance Officer for Compa Industries, Inc.:
Count One: Fraud, Extortion and Conspiracy
Count Two: Fraud
Count Three: Fraud
Count Four: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Five: Fraud, Conspiracy and Conversion
Count Six: Fraud, Conspiracy, and Conversion
Count Seven: Fraud, Breach of Oral Contract
Count Eight: Fraud
Count Nine: Fraud
Count Ten: Fraud
Count Eleven: Fraud
Count Twelve: Fraud
Count Thirteen: Harassment
Count Fourteen: Conspiracy
Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Jensenlopez et al., 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF Doc. 13 (D.N.M.). In an
Order to Show Cause, the Court recited the elements of the claims and stated in part as follows:
The Complaint fails to state claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil
conspiracy. Some of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague or conclusory. See, for
example, Complaint at 19-20 (“Jensenlopez colluded in the above claims in a
racketeering scheme to steal the fruits of the Plaintiff’s labor and job from him;”
“Jensenlopez with [other persons] were also instrumental in the scheme of
conversion of the contract the Plaintiff acquires with CEO, Edna Lopez;”
“Jensenlopez was instrumental in the fraud to steal the HUB Zone credentials;”
“Jensenlopez extorted the Plaintiff on multiple occasions, spanning nearly a
decade;” “Jensenlopez racketed labor from Compa Industries Inc staff for Straify
LLC;”). Vague and conclusory allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. See
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492
F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint
must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how
the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.”). Other allegations in the Complaint, such as
Defendant made jokes, did not give Plaintiff a raise and promotion, lied to Plaintiff,
gave Plaintiff a bad reference, gave himself a raise, and hired a friend, are not
sufficient to state claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil conspiracy.
Order to Show Cause, Lopez v. Jensenlopez et al., 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF, Doc. 7 at 4-5 (D.N.M.).
In response to the OSC, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. However, the amended complaint
did not make material changes to the factual allegations, aside from removing some claims. As
explained below, the Court concludes that the amended complaint continues to fail to state a claim,
for the reasons stated in the order to show cause.
Plaintiff asserts multiple fraud, conspiracy, conversion claims which are simply too vague
and conclusory. The Court noted in the order to show cause that the claims were vague and
conclusory, set forth the relevant pleading standard, and set forth the elements of the claims to aid
Plaintiff in properly pleading factual allegations in support of his claims. Nevertheless, he
generally did not make material changes by adding sufficient factual allegations in support of his
claims. For example, under Count Two Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jensenlopez sabotaged
Plaintiff’s work for Compa Industries by denying he received an email from the SBA. He asserts
this delayed the certification with the Small Business Administration. These allegations are vague
and conclusory, and otherwise do not state a fraud claim. Under Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Jensenlopez sabotaged Plaintiff’s work by ruining the file structure for one of his
proposals. These allegations are simply too vague and conclusory to state a claim. Under Counts
Four and Five, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jensenlopez obtained the login credentials from
him for Compa Industries’ SBA HUBZone account, effectively taking part of his job administering
the account for Compa Industries. These allegations under Counts Four and Five are similarly
vague and conclusory, and otherwise do not state a fraud or conspiracy claim.
Under Count Thirteen, Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed by Defendant Jensenlopez
when he sent two e-mails to Plaintiff, one regarding a renewal notice and another concerning a
new car Jensenlopez bought. These allegations are similarly vague and conclusory, and otherwise
do not state a harassment claim.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Stratify LLC and Compa Industries are liable under
a theory of respondeat superior. As explained in the order to show cause, Plaintiff’s respondeat
superior claims fail because the underlying claims fail.
Therefore, assuming the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, all claims
asserted in Lopez v. Jensenlopez, 1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF (D.N.M.) are alternatively dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
F. Samuel Rene Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC,
1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.)
Plaintiff alleges the following claims against his mother, Defendant Edna Louisa Lopez,
who was the CEO of Compa Industries:
Count One: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Two: Fraud
Count Three: Breach of Contract
Count Four: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Five: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Six: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Seven: Fraud/Conspiracy
Count Eight: Battery
Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Lopez et al., 1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF Doc. 10 (D.N.M.). In an Order
to Show Cause, the Court recited the elements of the claims and stated in part as follows:
Many of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague or conclusory. See, for example,
Complaint at 8–10, 12, 15 (Lopez “failed to protect the plaintiff from further abuses
and injuries from Jensenlopez;” “Lopez conspired with her Lawyer to give the
Plaintiff an outdated, invalid Will from around 2011 to submit to the SBA -Small
Business Administration, for the certification;” “Lopez also used her lawyer,
Allegra Hanson, to bully the Plaintiff out of his contract;” “Lopez terminated the
Plaintiff’s employment in February 2021 under fraudulent pretenses;” “Lopez was
complicit to the theft of this critical part of the Plaintiff’s job;” Lopez “colluded”
with others and “was instrumental” in racketeering and fraud schemes). Vague and
conclusory allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. See Brooks v. Mentor
Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2021) (“we disregard conclusory
statements and look to the remaining factual allegations to see whether Plaintiffs
have stated a plausible claim”); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at
Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state
a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him
or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her;
and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”). Other
allegations in the Complaint, such as those that state Defendant witnessed
Plaintiff’s work, failed to acquire a contract at Los Alamos, took Plaintiff’s job,
allowed another person to avoid internal audits and breached a contract, are not
sufficient to state plausible claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil
conspiracy.
Order to Show Cause, Lopez v. Lopez et al., 1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF, Doc. 6 at 5-6 (D.N.M.).
Moreover, the Court explained in the order to show cause the elements of a breach of contract
claim and explained that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff’s claims
remain vague and conclusory, and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, as explained below.
Under Count One, Plaintiff alleges fraud and conspiracy claims against Defendant Edna
Lopez because Defendant Jensenlopez did not pay him for five hours of work at Stratify LLC. He
alleges he was eventually paid for the five hours of work. Plaintiff did not allege Defendant Edna
Lopez’s participation in this alleged fraud or conspiracy, and his vague or conclusory allegations
otherwise do not state a fraud or conspiracy claim.
Under Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that he is not treated as well as his brothers in Edna
Lopez’s will, although he was told he would be. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations do
not state a fraud claim.
Under Count Three, Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim for his alleged work on
certifying Compa Industries under the Small Business Administration’s HUBZone program. “In
order to establish a breach of contract claim, a party must show that (1) there was a contractual
obligation; (2) the opposing party breached the contract; and (3) the breach resulted in damages.”
McLaughlin v. Santa Fe Community College, 2023WL7018418, ¶ 11 (N.M. Ct. app. 2023) (citing
Cent. Mkt., Ltd., Inc. v. Multi-Concept Hosp., LLC, 2022-NMCA-021, ¶ 38); See Talbott v. Roswell
Hosp. Corp., 2005-NMCA-109, ¶ 14 (“The essential attributes of a contract include an offer, an
acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent”). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and
conclusory. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factual allegations establishing an offer, acceptance,
and consideration. He has also not alleged factual allegations plausibly alleging a breach.
Under Count Four, Plaintiff alleges that others demanded a part of his job at Compa
Industries, administering Compa Industries’ SAM.gov account. He alleges they falsely stated that
a contracting officer requested the login credentials for Compa Industries’ online account.
Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations do not state a fraud or conspiracy claim.
Under Count Five, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Edna Lopez conspired with others to
deprive him of compensation for work he performed on the HUBZone certification. Plaintiff’s
vague and conclusory allegations do not state a fraud or conspiracy claim.
Under Count Six, Plaintiff again alleges various fraud relating the loss of his job
and his termination. Plaintiff does not allege any acts by Edna Lopez. His allegations are vague
and conclusory, and do not state a fraud or conspiracy claim.
Under Count Seven, Plaintiff alleges that Edna Lopez terminated his employment in
February 2021 under “fraudulent pretenses”, including “not working with Daniel.” Amended
Complaint, Lopez v. Lopez, 1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF, Doc. 10 at ¶¶ 93-95 (D.N.M.). These
allegations are similarly too vague and conclusory to assert a fraud or conspiracy claim.
Under Count Eight, Plaintiff alleges that his mother Edna Lopez committed battery by
punching him. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations do not state a battery claim.
Plaintiff also alleges respondeat superior claims against Stratify LLC and Compa
Industries. The respondeat superior claims fail, because the claims above fail. The respondeat
superior claim also does not apply to Count Eight, as there are no allegations that the intentional
battery occurred within the scope of Edna Lopez’s employment. Ocana v. Am. Furniture Co.,
2004–NMSC–018, ¶ 29, 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d 58.
Therefore, if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in Lopez v. Lopez,
1:24-cv-990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.), the Court would alternatively dismiss the claims for failure to
state a claim.
G. Samuel Rene Lopez v. Karen Monty, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-
cv-991 KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff alleges various claims against Karen Monty, who worked for Compa Industries as
a human resources manager and vice president. He asserts the following claims:
Count One and Two: Fraud/Conversion
Count Three: Conspiracy
Amended Complaint, Lopez v. Monty et al., 1:24-cv-991 KWR/LF, Doc. 9 (D.N.M.). In an Order
to Show Cause, the Court recited the elements of the claims and stated in part as follows:
The Complaint fails to state claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil
conspiracy. Some of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague or conclusory. See, for
example, Complaint at 7, 10-11, 13 (“Monty covered up the extortion as Human
Resource Manager;” “Monty failed to protect the plaintiff from further abuses and
injuries;” “Monty was complicit to the theft of this critical part of the Plaintiff’s
job;” “Monty, again, is complicit in a fraudulent scheme by Edna Lopez and
Jensenlopez to harm him and deprive him from what he was owed for the work he
performed;” “Monty colluded and conspired with” other persons “to sabotage his
work, steal his job, and was instrumental with breaching of his contract”). Vague
and conclusory allegations are not sufficient to state a claim. See Nasious v. Two
Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158,
1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain
what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the
defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.”). Other allegations in the Complaint, such as
Defendant Monty approached Plaintiff to do recruiting for Stratify, was a witness
to meetings, knew of Plaintiff’s contract with Edna, did not submit to the editor
work Plaintiff did for Monty on a proposal, and was a witness to the actions of
others, are not sufficient to state claims for conversion, racketeering, fraud and civil
conspiracy.
Order to Show Cause, Lopez v. Monty, 1:24-cv-991, Doc. 7 at 4-5 KWR/LF (D.N.M.). Although
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff’s claims
remain vague and conclusory, and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim.
Under Counts One and Two, Plaintiff asserts fraud and conspiracy claims. He alleges that
Defendant Monty wrongfully terminated him under fraudulent pretenses and because he wasn’t
working with Daniel Jensenlopez. Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory, and do not
assert a fraud or conspiracy claim.
Under Count Three, Plaintiff asserts a conspiracy claim against Defendant Monty, asserting
that he was defrauded, his contract breached, and his job taken. Plaintiff’s allegations are vague
and conclusory, and he does not assert a plausible conspiracy claim.
Plaintiff also alleges respondeat superior claims against Stratify LLC and Compa
Industries. The respondeat superior claims fail, because the claims above fail.
III. The Court declines to reassign these cases to another judge.
Plaintiff again asserts that I should recuse from six of these cases. The Court interprets this
as a motion to reconsider its ruling declining to reassign six of these cases. As explained in the
Court’s prior orders denying the motions to reassign, Plaintiff’s general concerns about judicial
bias, without any factual assertions suggesting judicial bias, are not sufficient to warrant recusal.
Plaintiff asserts that I should not be assigned to all seven cases. In this district cases which
could or should be consolidated are generally assigned to the same presiding judge. “If actions
before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may” consolidate the actions,
join for hearing any or all matters at issue in the actions, or enter any other orders to avoid
unnecessary costs or delays. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). A district court, in its sound discretion, may
consolidate related cases sua sponte. Devlin v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130
(2d Cir. 1999). Once the district court determines there is a common question of law or fact, the
court weighs the interest of judicial convenience in consolidating the cases against the delay,
confusion, and prejudice that consolidation might cause. See id. (“In assessing whether
consolidation is appropriate in given circumstances, a district court should consider both equity
and judicial economy.”); Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial
of motion to consolidate because movants failed to establish that consolidation would promote
trial convenience and economy in administration or that they suffered injury as a result of court's
refusal to consolidate); Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. Great American Ins. Co., 866 F. Supp.
1560, 1572 (D.N.M. 1994) (“If the cases involve a common question of law or fact, the Court
should then weigh the interests of judicial convenience in consolidating the cases against the delay,
confusion, and prejudice consolidation might cause.”).
Here, these cases involve common questions of law or fact. Plaintiff asserts claims against
defendants all stemming from the same factual matter and his employment with his family
business, Compa Industries, Inc. All individual defendants worked at or with Compa Industries,
and the claims asserted against them stem from their work at or with Compa Industries. The fraud
claims all stem from the same or similar factual matter, such as Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful
termination or Plaintiff’s work on certifying Compa Industries with the Small Business
Administration’s HUBZone program. He also asserts that the individual defendants were involved
in a conspiracy together. Moreover, each case generally involves claims against the same corporate
entities, such as Compa Industries and Stratify LLC. In accordance with the practice in this district,
because I was randomly assigned the lowest-digit case, the other six cases were all reassigned to
me. The Court therefore issues a consolidated opinion, which will be issued in each case. However,
because the Court dismisses these cases without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
the Court sees no reason to enter an order consolidating these cases.
Finally, Plaintiff challenges the timing of the orders to show cause, suggesting that it
demonstrates judicial bias. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status,
and the Court is required to screen the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (“the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that…” the case fails to state a claim).
Moreover, the Court is required to dismiss a case at any time if it concludes subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking.
CONCLUSION
As explained above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden to plead
or establish subject matter jurisdiction in his amended complaints and therefore dismisses each of
his seven cases without prejudice. This dismissal without prejudice means that although this
federal court lacks jurisdiction, he may attempt to file his cases in a state court where jurisdiction
exists.
Alternatively, only assuming the court has subject matter jurisdiction over these cases,
the Court concludes that he failed to state a claim, for the reasons asserted in the orders to show
cause entered in each case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that each of the following seven cases filed by Plaintiff
are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction:
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Allegra Hanson, Allegra Hanson PC, and Compa Industries, Inc.,
1:24-cv-984 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Armando Rene Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC.,
1:24-cv-985 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Chenot, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC., 1:24-cv-986
KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Bingham, Compa Industries, Inc., and Stratify, LLC., 1:24-cv-987
KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Daniel Anthony Jensenlopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC,
1:24-cv-988 KWR/LF (D.N.M.);
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Edna Louisa Lopez, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-
990 KWR/LF (D.N.M.); and
Samuel Rene Lopez v. Karen Monty, Compa Industries, Inc., Stratify, LLC, 1:24-cv-991
KWR/LF (D.N.M.).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in each of the seven cases identified in the caption,
Plaintiff’s Motion Showing Cause for Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this opinion shall be filed in all seven cases identified
in the caption of this order.
_____/S/______________________________
KEA W. RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE