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 revolves around a dispute concerning damages to a swimming pool and deck resulting from a flood. The Plaintiff argued that a second flood caused additional damage to her property, specifically to the swimming pool and deck. The Defendant contested this claim, arguing that the second flood did not exacerbate the damage.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, Sheri A. Raphaelson, District Judge: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the second flood caused additional damages to the swimming pool and deck, relying on an unsworn interview with Randy Cordova as evidence.
• Defendant: Contended that the second flood did not cause additional damage to the pool or deck, supported by sworn affidavits stating that neither the pool nor the decking suffered greater damage as a result of the second flood.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff made an affirmative showing by affidavit or other admissible evidence that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the damages to the swimming pool and deck caused by the second flood.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact necessary to defeat summary judgment. The Court highlighted that the evidence relied upon by the Plaintiff, an unsworn interview with Randy Cordova, was not competent evidence to defeat summary judgment. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the interview were considered, it did not support the Plaintiff's claim that the second flood caused additional damage to the swimming pool and deck. The Court also emphasized that the Plaintiff did not present a theory that the second flood damaged the pool decking even if it caused no greater damage to the pool itself. Additionally, the Court refused to consider a new theory on appeal that was not presented to the district court, specifically regarding the damage to the decking. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff did not provide admissible evidence demonstrating an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment, affirming the district court's decision.