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 Miller Family Real Estate LLC Utah Jazz (Plaintiff) sought to reinstate proceedings against Viola S. Garcia-Vallejos, the County Assessor of Valencia County, New Mexico (Defendant), after the case was dismissed for inactivity. The Plaintiff argued that the dismissal was unjustified due to the Plaintiff's counsel's diagnosis with Leukemia, which hindered the ability to prosecute the case, and efforts to settle the case that took place between the Plaintiff's agents and the Valencia County Deputy Assessor (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to reinstate the proceedings, citing the counsel's illness and ongoing settlement efforts as good cause for reinstatement (para 2).
• Defendant: Contended that no settlement had been reached at the time of dismissal, the Plaintiff's counsel failed to communicate the intent to negotiate a settlement or the reason for not establishing communication, and did not notify the Defendant's counsel of his illness, arguing these points demonstrated a lack of good cause for reinstatement (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that the Plaintiff did not show good cause for reinstatement of its claims (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings (para 6).

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, with JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring, found that the district court abused its discretion by not considering the Plaintiff's counsel's illness and the efforts to settle as constituting good cause for reinstatement. The appellate court was not persuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, which did not clearly point out errors in fact or law in the appellate court's proposed disposition. The court emphasized that the standard for good cause in the context of reinstatement is whether a party is ready, willing, and able to proceed with the prosecution of his claim and that the delay in prosecution is not wholly without justification. The court concluded that the Plaintiff had provided sufficient justification post-dismissal, demonstrating that the lack of prosecution was not wholly without justification due to the counsel’s illness and proposed settlement negotiation. Additionally, the court denied the Defendant's motion to supplement the record with the motion hearing transcript, as transcripts are generally not considered in cases assigned to the summary calendar without sufficient reason (paras 2-6).