Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Chavez v. U-Haul Co. - cited by 58 documents
In re Yalkut - cited by 52 documents
Decision Content
NAJIBI V. HALLIBURTON
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
MICHAEL NAJIBI,
Worker-Appellant,
v.
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICE, and
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
Employer/Insurer-Appellees.
No. 36,208
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
July 26, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION,
David Skinner, Workers’ Compensation Judge
COUNSEL
Michael Najibi, Las Cruces, NM, Pro se Appellant
Butt, Thornton & Baeher PC, M. Scott Owen, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees
JUDGES
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GARCIA, Judge.
{1} Worker-Appellant Michael Najibi (“Worker”) appeals from the workers’ compensation judge’s (“WCJ”) amended compensation order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to dismiss. Worker has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
{2} As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, ¶ 24, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam). In this case, Worker filed his notice of appeal nearly three months late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g., Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d 122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late).
{3} In his memorandum in opposition Worker offers neither any basis for extending the filing deadline, nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 1-4] Instead, we understand Worker to invite the Court to consider the merits of the appeal notwithstanding the untimely filing. [Id.] We decline.
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we dismiss.
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge