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 an appeal by Defendant Gomez Services against a judgment from the metropolitan court, which awarded Plaintiff Rene Lira damages and costs. The specifics of the underlying dispute between the parties are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Awarded Plaintiff Rene Lira damages and costs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court's judgment should be reversed or amended, asserting five appellate issues in both the docketing statement and a memorandum in opposition to the court's notice of proposed disposition.

Legal Issues

• Whether the motion to amend the docketing statement should be granted.
• Whether the appellate court's notice of proposed disposition to affirm the metropolitan court's judgment was erroneous.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied as moot.
• The judgment of the metropolitan court awarding damages and costs to Plaintiff Rene Lira was affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Shammara H. Henderson, provided the reasoning for their decision. The court found no good cause to grant the motion to amend the docketing statement as it did not seek to add any new issues but rather to reformulate the statement of appellate issues, which the court had already considered as a docketing statement (para 3). Furthermore, the court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, noting a lack of clarity in the Defendant's arguments and a failure to develop or identify his arguments on appeal adequately. The Defendant repeated the same five issues previously raised without providing persuasive facts, law, or argument to challenge the court's proposed disposition (paras 4-5). Additionally, the court noted that even though the Defendant provided case law related to oral contracts, the statute of frauds, and detrimental reliance, he failed to clearly connect these principles to the dispute at hand or demonstrate how the metropolitan court might have erred in applying or failing to apply these doctrines (para 6).