14, 2007, that he was employed by the City and entitled to his salary and benefits until that time, and that he did not waive his right to the salary and benefits he sought. He also contends that he is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees permitted under the Act. The Retroactive Cure Issue {9} We review questions of interpretation of statutes de novo. State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939. Public entities can cure violations of the Act. See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. of Santa Fe Pub. Sch. v. Sullivan, 106 N.M. 125, 125, 740 P.2d 119, 119-20 (1987) (stating that the board was entitled to correct the procedural defect of failing to comply with the Act); Kleinberg v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 107 N.M. 38, 44, 751 P.2d 722, 728 (Ct. App. 1988) (<HOLDING>). But no authority in New Mexico supports the
holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this holding that because the pending eviction proceedings do not give plaintiffs an adequate forum to challenge termination of their section 8 assistance  under the exceptions to the doctrine of younger abstention and the antiinjunction act the court may stay housing court proceedings until the validity of the termination of plaintiffs assistance can be decided recognizing that the procedural defect could be corrected through a reinstatement of the termination proceedings holding while there may be some case law to support plaintiffs argument the majority approach is that the failure to attach process defect is merely procedural and that this particular procedural defect may be cured holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect