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

• The case involves the Defendant, Greg M. Trujillo, appealing from the district court's order which denied his motion to reconsider, as well as his motions for an extension of time and to stay the judgment. The Plaintiff in the case is the Bank of New York, acting as Trustee for the CertificateHolders of the CWABS 2005-1. Other defendants include the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, the Taxation and Revenue Department of the State of New Mexico, and the United States of America (IRS).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: The Defendant-Appellant's specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The Plaintiff-Appellee's specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text. However, the Plaintiff responded to the notice of proposed summary disposition with a memorandum in support (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to reconsider.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motions for an extension of time and to stay the judgment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion to reconsider and denying his motions for extension of time and to stay the judgment (para 2).

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Michael E. Vigil with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge M. Monica Zamora concurring, decided to affirm the district court's rulings. The decision was based on the reasons set forth in their notice of proposed summary disposition. The Defendant did not respond to the notice of proposed summary disposition, and the time for doing so expired, which under Rule 12-210(D)(2) NMRA, constitutes acceptance of the proposed disposition. The Court found no error in the district court's rulings, leading to the affirmation of the order denying the Defendant's motions (paras 1-2).