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

• Arnold Larez (Larez) filed claims for wages and personal property against the estate of Gonzalo Gonzales, deceased. Larez's claims were dismissed by the district court, which ruled that his claims were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata.

Procedural History

• District Court of Rio Arriba County, July 8, 2011: The court issued an order dismissing Larez's claims for wages and personal property.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Larez): Argued that he and his attorney were not properly included in the court session that preceded the entry of the July 8, 2011 order. He also contended that his motion for reconsideration of the April 1, 2011 order dismissing his claims was timely filed.
• Appellee (Marcy Gonzales): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Larez's claims for wages and personal property are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata.
• Whether Larez and his attorney were properly included in the court session preceding the entry of the July 8, 2011 order.
• Whether Larez's motion for reconsideration of the April 1, 2011 order was timely filed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Larez's claims for wages and personal property and the determination that his claims are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Cynthia A. Fry, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals remained unpersuaded by Larez's arguments, particularly regarding the inclusion in the court session and the timeliness of his motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that the district court had properly ruled Larez's claims were barred due to the preclusive effect of prior proceedings and failure to comply with time limits for presenting claims post-decedent's death. The Court of Appeals viewed Larez's motion as a Rule 1-060(B)(2) NMRA motion and affirmed the district court's denial of Larez's requested relief.