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 Defendants appealed pro se from a district court order that dismissed their appeal from a metropolitan court writ of restitution. This writ was issued after the Defendants had lost all their appeals in a series of court challenges, including appeals to the district court, this Court, and the Supreme Court. The metropolitan court had initially issued the original writ of restitution on May 1, 2019.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court, May 1, 2019: Original writ of restitution issued (para 2).
• District Court, D-202-CV-2019-3552, July 1, 2021: Issued mandate to the metropolitan court in the first appeal (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that the Plaintiff failed to timely comply with Rule 1-085(A) NMRA following their first appeal, which they believed should affect the judgment in their favor (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the dismissal of the Defendants' appeal, presumably arguing that the Defendants' appeal was barred by the law of the case doctrine and that the procedural issue raised by the Defendants was moot (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendants' appeal is barred by the law of the case doctrine due to their previous losses in a series of appeals (para 2).
• Whether the Plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with Rule 1-085(A) NMRA affects the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (para 3).

Disposition

• The appeal from the district court order dismissing the Defendants' appeal from a metropolitan court writ of restitution was affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Kristina Bogardus, and Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, unanimously affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Defendants' appeal. The Court held that the Defendants' appeal was barred by the law of the case doctrine, as the Defendants were seeking a renewed attack in the same case where they had previously lost all appeals. The Court also rejected the Defendants' argument regarding the Plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with Rule 1-085(A) NMRA, citing a lack of authority that non-compliance with the rule waives judgment in favor of the prevailing party. Furthermore, the Court considered the issue moot since the district court had issued a mandate to the metropolitan court in the first appeal, effectively resolving the procedural issue raised by the Defendants (paras 2-4).