Griego v. NM Workers' Compensation
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 JOE GRIEGO, ELOY VIGIL, RAMON MOLINA, 3 SIN FRONTERAS ORGANIZING PROJECT, and 4 HELP-NEW MEXICO, INC., 5 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 6 v. 7 8 9 10 11 NO. 34,238 THE NEW MEXICO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, and DARIN CHILDERS, in his official capacity as Director of the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Defendants-Appellees. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 13 Valerie Huling, District Judge 14 New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty 15 Gail Evans 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellants 18 Workers’ Compensation Administration 19 Rachel A. Bayless 20 Albuquerque, NM 21 Scott Fuqua 22 Santa Fe, NM 23 for Appellees 2 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 ZAMORA, Judge. 3 {1} Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order denying a motion for 4 reconsideration of the district court’s order on Plaintiff’s motion for supplemental 5 injunctive relief. [3 RP 1048] Based on our recent decision in Rodriguez v. Brand 6 West Dairy, ____-NMCA-____, ___ P.3d ___ (Nos. 33,104 & 33,675, June 22, 7 2015), we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss. 8 Plaintiffs have filed a response, requesting that we hold this appeal in abeyance, 9 explaining that they are opposing the petition for writ of certiorari filed in the New 10 Mexico Supreme Court by Defendants in this case. [MIO 2] Plaintiffs appear to be 11 concerned about the precedential value of our opinion in Rodriguez, stating that “[i]f 12 and when certiorari is denied . . . they will have no objection to the summary 13 dismissal.” [MIO 2] However, their concern appears to be misplaced, given that our 14 rules specifically provide that neither the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari or 15 an order granting a petition suspends the precedential value of this Court’s opinions. 16 See Rule 12-405(C) NMRA (“A petition for a writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 17 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order granting the petition does not affect the 18 precedential value of an opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered 3 1 by the Supreme Court.”). Hence, we can perceive of no reason to hold this case in 2 abeyance as Plaintiffs request. 3 {2} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice, we dismiss this case as moot. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 _______________________________ M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8 ______________________________ 9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 10 ______________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 4
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.
