Community 1st Bank Las Vegas v. Quick Care, LLC
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 COMMUNITY 1st BANK LAS VEGAS, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. No. 35,090 5 QUICK CARE, LLC, a New Mexico 6 limited liability company, and 7 ALFONSO ARCHULETA, 8 Defendants-Appellants. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 10 Manuel I Arrieta, District Judge 11 Moses, Dunn, Farmer & Tuthill, P.C. 12 Nathan C. Sprague 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellee 15 Alfonso Archuleta 16 Las Cruces, NM 17 Pro Se Appellant 18 19 SUTIN, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Alfonso Archuleta appeals, pro se, from a district court order 2 denying a motion to set aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA. We 3 issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a pro se 4 memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 5 {2} As we previously observed, Defendant’s notice of appeal indicates that he is 6 appealing from two orders. [RP 719] The first order is a January 30, 2014, order that 7 included the denial of his motion to intervene. [RP 461, 722] We note that the ruling 8 was based on the fact that Defendant Archuleta was already a party in the case. [RP 9 461 (¶ 1)] In any event, the matter became moot when Defendant entered into a 10 subsequent settlement and a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice in August 11 2014. [RP 613] 12 {3} The second order listed on the notice of appeal [RP 719] is a September 22, 13 2015, order that denied Defendant Archuleta’s motion to set aside the original 14 judgment. [RP 700] The Rule 1-060(B) motion argued that the judgment should be set 15 aside as applied to Defendant Quick Care, LLC. [RP 617] Our calendar notice 16 proposed to hold that the district court properly denied the motion on the ground that 17 Defendant Archuleta could not represent Defendant Quick Care. See LR3-202(B) 18 NMRA (prohibiting pro se parties from representing corporations); see also NMSA 19 1978, § 36-2-27 (1999) (prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law). Because 2 1 Defendant Archuleta’s memorandum in opposition continues to attempt to advocate 2 on behalf on Defendant Quick Care, we conclude that he has not established any error 3 below. 4 {4} For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, we affirm. 5 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED 6 7 __________________________________ JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9 _________________________________ 10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11 _________________________________ 12 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, 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.
