Mendoza v. Huber
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 GEORGE MENDOZA, 3 Plaintiff-Appellant, 4 v. NO. 33,913 5 LUCINDA HUBER, 6 Defendant-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 8 Manuel I. Arrieta, District Judge 9 Lahann Law Firm, LLC 10 Christopher Cardenas 11 Las Cruces, NM 12 for Appellant 13 14 15 16 The Pickett Law Firm, LLC Stephen T. Swaim Lawrence M. Pickett Las Cruces, NM 17 for Appellee 18 19 VANZI, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Plaintiff appeals from a district court judgment resolving Plaintiff’s quiet title 2 complaint in Defendant’s favor. We issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss for 3 lack of a final order because the district court has not ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for 4 reconsideration. Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in opposition to that calendar 5 notice, and we issued a memorandum opinion affirming the district court. This Court 6 then granted Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing, in effect giving Plaintiff another 7 opportunity to respond to our calendar notice. In his post-rehearing order 8 memorandum, Plaintiff agrees that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons 9 stated in the calendar notice. Defendant, on the other hand, has argued that the district 10 court order should be considered final because the motion for reconsideration has been 11 automatically denied. See NMSA 1978, § 39-1-1 (1917) (providing that the district 12 courts retain jurisdiction over their judgments for a period of thirty days; motions 13 directed against such judgments may be filed within this period of time, but if the 14 district court fails to act upon such motions within thirty days, they are deemed 15 denied). We disagree with Defendant’s argument. See Rosales v. N.M. Taxation & 16 Revenue Dep’t, 2012-NMCA-098, ¶ 11, 287 P.3d 353 (observing, based on the 17 committee commentary associated with Rule 1-054.1 NMRA, that “the automatic 18 denial provision in Section 39-1-1 no longer applies in any civil case”). 2 1 {2} For the reasons discussed above and in our calendar notice, we dismiss the 2 appeal. 3 {3} DISMISSED. 4 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8 _________________________________ 9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 10 _________________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
