Spann v. National Conference of Bar Examiners.
No. 24-2083. 2/12/2026. D.N.M. Judge Hartz. New Mexico Bar Exam—Americans With Disabilities Act—Rehabilitation Act—Personal Jurisdiction—Summary Judgment—Failure to Properly Request Discovery—Eleventh Amendment Immunity.
February 12, 2026
Spann, who is disabled, took the New Mexico bar exam and was approved for certain testing accommodations. Spann failed the exam. Contending that she was not given the approved accommodations during the exam, she then brought the present action, amending her complaint three times before any defendant appeared in the case. As relevant here, Spann’s third amended complaint alleged that defendants’ failure to provide the testing accommodations violated Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed her claims against the National Conference of Bar Examiners (national conference) for lack of personal jurisdiction. At Spann’s request, the district court allowed her to file a fourth amended complaint but limited it to only a proposed count against the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners (state board) for violation of Title III of the ADA. The district court subsequently granted the state board’s motion to dismiss that ADA claim on the ground of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
On appeal, Spann argued that the district court erroneously denied her request to conduct discovery regarding the national conference’s contacts with New Mexico after the court had dismissed the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. Spann did not contest the district court’s ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the national conference based on the evidence before it when it so ruled. Here, the state board moved to dismiss the third amended complaint based in part on qualified immunity and moved to stay discovery “as to all claims and all defendants” while that motion was pending. Spann did not object to the motion to stay. Shortly thereafter, the national conference moved to dismiss the claims and submitted declarations showing it lacked the contacts with New Mexico necessary to subject it to personal jurisdiction. A magistrate judge granted the stay of discovery, to which Spann did not request an exception. The magistrate judge later recommended dismissing the claims against the national conference for lack of personal jurisdiction, and in objecting to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, Spann did not argue that she should be granted jurisdictional discovery. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the claims against the national conference for lack of personal jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice because the court had not addressed the merits. Over a month after the motion to dismiss had been granted, Spann tried to reopen the personal jurisdiction question by reinserting the national conference as a defendant in her proposed fourth amended complaint. But while Spann asserted that her prior counsel had asked the court to conduct limited discovery on the jurisdiction issue, she did not explicitly request discovery. And Spann failed to mention that she had requested discovery only as to the state board, and only on the immunity issue. The court ultimately denied Spann leave to reinsert the national conference in an amended complaint. A year later, Spann moved for reconsideration arguing again that she should have been entitled to jurisdictional discovery, and that her prior request for discovery was directed not just at the State Bar but also at the national conference. But she again did not state what specific discovery she sought. The court denied the motion. Spann thus never properly requested discovery below, and the district court did not err in dismissing the claims against the national conference based on the record it had before it at the time.
Spann also argued that the district court should have allowed discovery before granting summary judgment to the state board on the § 504 claim. The state board moved for summary judgment on the § 504 claim because that provision applies only to entities that receive federal funding, and it submitted a declaration of facts in support of the motion. In response, Spann argued that she needed to conduct discovery to refute the state board’s declaration and determine whether the Board receives federal funding. But the court found that Spann failed to meet the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) requirements to justify additional time to conduct discovery in response to a motion for summary judgment. And on appeal, Spann did not explain how the district court abused its discretion in finding that she had not met the Rule 56(d) requirements. There was thus no error.
Spann further contended that the Title III claim should not have been dismissed on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity apply here, and Spann failed to show any error in the dismissal of the fourth amended complaint based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The judgment was affirmed.