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 Citibank, N.A. (Plaintiff) against Daniel J. Bergman (Defendant) where the Plaintiff sought recovery on its claim. The Defendant, in response, filed counterclaim(s) against the Plaintiff's motion. The dispute led to the Plaintiff filing a motion for summary judgment, substantiated with extensive documentary support and affidavits, to which the Defendant responded, primarily with his own assertions.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge: Awarded summary judgment to Plaintiff and dismissed Defendant’s counterclaim(s).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued for summary judgment, substantiating its motion with extensive documentary support and affidavits, demonstrating entitlement to recovery on its claim.
• Defendant: Contended that the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to Plaintiff and in dismissing Defendant’s counterclaim(s), largely relying on his own assertions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to Plaintiff.
• Whether the dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaim(s) was proper.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment to Plaintiff and the dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaim(s).

Reasons

• Megan P. Duffy, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Shammara H. Henderson, Judges, concurred in the opinion. The Court found Defendant's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition largely unresponsive and unpersuasive, noting that it duplicated a response previously filed in district court without effectively demonstrating the existence of any genuine issue of material fact (para 3). The Court also found the dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaim(s) to be supported by the district court’s rationale, with Defendant’s opposition consisting of conclusory assertions not supported by the record (para 4). An affidavit attached by the Defendant on appeal was deemed improper for consideration as it was not presented to the district court (para 5). The decision to affirm was based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the Court's analysis (para 6).