Court of Appeals of New Mexico

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

EDWARD F. MENDEZ and
RAYMOND J. MCQUEEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, INC.; GO WIRELESS
INC.; CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.;
NORTH SHORE AGENCY; IC SYSTEM;
RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,
LLC; NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER, INC.;
NANCY B. CLARK, SVP-OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
and TERRI WALKER, EXECUTIVE RELATIONS,
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, INC. d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. A-1-CA-35893

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

April 2, 2018

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, RAYMOND Z. ORTIZ, District Judge

COUNSEL

Raymond J. McQueen, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se Appellant

Edward F. Mendez, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se Appellant

Hinkle Shanor LLP, Benjamin F. Feuchter, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees

JUDGES

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge. WE CONCUR: M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge

AUTHOR: J. MILES HANISEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1}       Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting (1) motion to dismiss first amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. This Court issued a second calendar notice proposing to affirm the district court’s order on February 6, 2018. On February 27, 2018, Defendants filed a memorandum in support of this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition. On March 1, 2018, Defendant Nations Recovery Center, Inc. joined in the memorandum in support filed on February 27, 2018. To this date, Plaintiffs have not filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition, and the time for doing so has now run. Accordingly, we rely on the reasoning set out in this Court’s second notice of proposed disposition and we affirm.

{2}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANSIEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge