Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,410 documents

Decision Content

SETON FAMILY TRUST V. WIRTH

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

SETON FAMILY TRUST
INTERESTS by TRUSTEE
RICHARD A. VAN AUKEN;
and RICHARD A. VAN AUKEN,
Plaintiff-Appellants,
v.
PETER F. WIRTH, ESQ.; FLETCHER
R. CATRON, ESQ., CATRON, CATRON
& POTTOW, P.A.; SAWTELL, WIRTH
& BIEDSCHEID, P.C.; MICHAEL T.
POTTOW, ESQ.; BRYAN P. BIEDSCHEID, ESQ;
W. ANTHONY SAWTELL, ESQ; THOMAS B.
CATRON, ESQ.; JOHN S. CATRON, ESQ.;
KAREN AUBREY, ESQ.; BRIGGS CHENEY, ESQ.;
PREBYTERIAN MEDICAL SERVICES FOUNDATION;
MARIE HARRISON; and DOES 1 THROUGH 20
INCLUSIVE,
Defendants-Appellees.

NO. 30,087

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

April 27, 2010


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, James A. Hall, District Judge

COUNSEL

Seton Family Trust Interests by Trustee, Richard A. Van Auken, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se Appellant

Law Office of Karen Aubrey, Karen Aubrey, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee Karen Aubrey

Law Office of Jack Brant, P.C., John M. Brant, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees

Catron, Catron and Pottow, P.A., Sawtell, Wirth & Biedscheid, Peter F. Wirth, Michael T. Pottow, Fletcher R. Catron, Bryan P. Biedscheid, W. Anthony Sawtell, Thomas B. Catron, John S. Catron

JUDGES

CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

AUTHOR: CYNTHIA A. FRY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FRY, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting a protective order to Defendant Karen Aubrey. [DS 2] We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order and mootness. Plaintiffs filed a timely memorandum in support agreeing with our proposed analysis. [MIS 2] Plaintiffs also filed a motion requesting this Court to consolidate this appeal with No. 30,215. [MIO 2-3] For the reasons in the notice of proposed disposition, we dismiss this appeal. By separate order, we also deny the motion to consolidate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.