Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 36 - Attorneys - cited by 1,022 documents
District 3 - Rules of the District Court of the Third Judicial District - cited by 34 documents
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
Decision Content
COMMUNITY 1ST BANK LAS VEGAS V. QUICK CARE, LLC
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
COMMUNITY 1st BANK LAS VEGAS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
QUICK CARE, LLC, a New Mexico
limited liability company, and
ALFONSO ARCHULETA,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 35,090
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
June 21, 2016
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, Manuel
I Arrieta, District Judge
COUNSEL
Moses, Dunn, Farmer & Tuthill, P.C., Nathan C. Sprague, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Alfonso Archuleta, Las Cruces, NM, Pro Se Appellant
JUDGES
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
{1} Defendant Alfonso Archuleta appeals, pro se, from a district court order denying a motion to set aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a pro se memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
{2} As we previously observed, Defendant’s notice of appeal indicates that he is appealing from two orders. [RP 719] The first order is a January 30, 2014, order that included the denial of his motion to intervene. [RP 461, 722] We note that the ruling was based on the fact that Defendant Archuleta was already a party in the case. [RP 461 (¶ 1)] In any event, the matter became moot when Defendant entered into a subsequent settlement and a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice in August 2014. [RP 613]
{3} The second order listed on the notice of appeal [RP 719] is a September 22, 2015, order that denied Defendant Archuleta’s motion to set aside the original judgment. [RP 700] The Rule 1-060(B) motion argued that the judgment should be set aside as applied to Defendant Quick Care, LLC. [RP 617] Our calendar notice proposed to hold that the district court properly denied the motion on the ground that Defendant Archuleta could not represent Defendant Quick Care. See LR3-202(B) NMRA (prohibiting pro se parties from representing corporations); see also NMSA 1978, § 36-2-27 (1999) (prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law). Because Defendant Archuleta’s memorandum in opposition continues to attempt to advocate on behalf on Defendant Quick Care, we conclude that he has not established any error below.
{4} For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, we affirm.
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge