Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Rule Set 1 - Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 4,506 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Frick v. Veazey - cited by 97 documents
Decision Content
CACH, LLC V. RILEY
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
CACH, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee,
v.
DAVID W. RILEY,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant
No. 32,931
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
September 17, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge
COUNSEL
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Jennifer G. Anderson, Emil J. Kiehne, Albuquerque, NM, Kanter & Grubesic, P.A., Dana K. Grubesic, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Law Offices of Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
{1} Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff seeks to appeal from the district court’s order granting his motion for summary judgment due to lack of standing and denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on attorney fees related to Plaintiff’s claim. We issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to summarily dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order, due to outstanding counterclaims and a lack of certification language that could make the order immediately appealable under Rule 1-054(B)(1) NMRA. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has filed a response to our notice, supporting our proposed summary disposition. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff has not filed a response. “Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287. We, therefore, summarily dismiss Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order for the reasons set forth in our notice.
{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge