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 Plaintiff, a self-represented attorney, entered into an employment agreement with the Defendant, Incorporated County of Los Alamos. The Plaintiff contends that an amendment extending the contract was not approved by the County Council as required. This amendment purportedly extended the contract to June 1, 2012, or until a new county attorney was hired, beyond its original expiration of March 10, 2012. The Plaintiff argues that the contract was improperly extended in March 2012 due to the Defendant's ongoing selection process for a new county attorney, leading to a dispute over entitlement to a severance payment under the terms of the employment agreement (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argues that the contract extension to June 1, 2012, or until a new county attorney was hired, was not approved by the County Council as required, and contends that without proper authorization, the agreement should have expired on March 10, 2012, or upon the hiring of a new county attorney. The Plaintiff believes this entitles him to a severance payment under the terms of the employment agreement (paras 2-3).
• Defendant: The specific arguments of the Defendant are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the Defendant opposed the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and argued that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a severance payment under the terms of the employment agreement, leading to the court granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the amendment to the employment agreement extending the contract was validly approved by the County Council.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a severance payment under the terms of the employment agreement upon its expiration.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, as well as the order denying the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (para 4).

Reasons

• JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The Court found that even if the Plaintiff's contention regarding the lack of approval by the County Council for the contract extension was true, the agreement still expired by its own terms once March 10, 2012, passed or a new county attorney was appointed. The Court noted that the Plaintiff did not demonstrate entitlement to a severance payment under the terms of the employment agreement in the event of its expiration without action from either party or due to the appointment of a new county attorney. The Court emphasized that the burden was on the Plaintiff to clearly point out errors in fact or law and that merely repeating earlier arguments did not fulfill this requirement. The employment agreement explicitly stated conditions contrary to the Plaintiff's claims for severance payment, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision (paras 2-4).