AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Arthur Firstenberg, a self-represented litigant, brought claims against Robin Leith, which led to various court orders including a summary judgment against Firstenberg's claims, partial summary judgment in favor of Firstenberg on Leith's amended counterclaim, and a denial of Firstenberg's motion for clarification. The case involved issues related to the placement of utility meters on the parties' properties. Both parties sought to appeal various orders issued by the district court (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, October 6, 2012: Summary judgment entered against Firstenberg's claims.
• District Court of Santa Fe County, February 21, 2015: Partial summary judgment granted to Firstenberg on Leith's amended counterclaim.
• District Court of Santa Fe County, May 1, 2015: Firstenberg's motion for clarification denied.
• District Court of Santa Fe County, July 3, 2012: Granted, in part, Leith's motion for leave to file counterclaims against Firstenberg.

Parties' Submissions

• Firstenberg: Argued that the May 1, 2015 order should be considered final, allowing for appeal, despite the district court's ongoing consideration of issues related to the placement of utility meters (para 4).
• Leith: Sought to appeal the order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Firstenberg on her amended counterclaim and the order granting her motion for leave to file counterclaims, indicating unresolved issues regarding the utility meters (paras 1, 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the May 1, 2015 order constitutes a final, appealable order given the ongoing proceedings related to the placement of utility meters on the parties' properties.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order (para 7).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring, determined that the appeal was premature as the May 1, 2015 order was not a final, appealable order. The court noted that both parties acknowledged the case might not be ripe for appeal and that there were outstanding issues to be resolved by the district court, particularly related to the placement of utility meters. Despite Firstenberg's assertion that the May 1, 2015 order was final, the court found that the district court was still considering issues related to the utility meters, indicating that the case had not been disposed of to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal (paras 2-6).