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 Lion's Gate Water's appeal against a dismissal order issued by the district court. The dismissal was based on Lion's Gate Water's failure to take significant action to bring its claim to trial or other final disposition for more than two years following a remand from the New Mexico Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had previously limited the district court's review to whether water is available for appropriation, a matter initially decided by the State Engineer.

Procedural History

• Lion’s Gate Water v. D’Antonio, 2009-NMSC-057: The New Mexico Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for a de novo review limited to the issue of water availability for appropriation.
• District Court of Grant County: Granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss with prejudice due to Petitioner's inactivity for more than two years post-remand.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court's dismissal was not in accordance with the Supreme Court's direction for a de novo review of water availability and contended that Rule 1-041(E)(1) was inapplicable to their case due to actions taken to bring the claim to trial or other final disposition.
• Respondent-Appellee: Filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 1-041(E)(1) on the basis that Petitioner had taken no action to further its case for more than two years.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss.
• Whether the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before granting the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing Petitioner's case.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with concurrence from MICHAEL E. VIGIL and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judges, provided the reasoning for the decision. The court found that:
  The district court's dismissal did not contravene the Supreme Court's mandate in Lion’s Gate, as the mandate did not order a trial de novo but limited the district court's review to the issue of water availability (paras 7-9).
  Rule 1-041(E)(1) was applicable to this case despite Petitioner's argument to the contrary. The court rejected Petitioner's claim that their actions following the filing were sufficient to avoid dismissal under this rule (para 10).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. The court considered Petitioner's lack of significant action to bring the case to trial or other final disposition since September 20, 2011, and found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal (paras 11-15).
  The district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing the case under Rule 1-041(E)(1), nor did the dismissal without a hearing violate Petitioner's due process rights. The court noted that Petitioner had notice of the motion to dismiss and an opportunity to respond, which satisfied the requirements of due process (paras 16-21).