Christoffel v. Cloud
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 STEVEN CHRISTOFFEL, 3 Plaintiff-Appellant, 4 v. NO. 35,991 5 6 7 8 JACK CLOUD, as Planning Department Manager of the City of Albuquerque, and the CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, 9 Defendants-Appellees, 10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 11 Clay Campbell, District Judge 12 Steven G. Christoffel 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 Pro Se Appellant 15 16 17 18 City of Albuquerque Jessica M. Hernandez, City Attorney John E. Dubois, Assistant City Attorney Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellees 20 21 ZAMORA, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Plaintiff has appealed from the denial of a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion for 2 relief from a previously entered judgment dismissing his claims. We issued a notice 3 of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Plaintiff has filed 4 a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain 5 unpersuaded, we affirm. 6 {2} We previously described the pertinent background and applicable principles of 7 law in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will avoid undue reiteration 8 here. However, because the memorandum in opposition contains very little to 9 distinguish it from the docketing statement, our analysis remains essentially 10 unchanged. 11 {3} Plaintiff continues to argue that the ordinances, statutes, and other authorities 12 he cited should be regarded as newly discovered evidence. [MIO 3-27] We remain 13 unpersuaded that these materials, which were previously available, could not have 14 been discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence. See Rule 1-060(B)(2). 15 {4} We understand Plaintiff to continue to suggest inadvertence and fraud as 16 grounds for relief. [MIO 3] However, he provides no further elaboration. We 17 therefore remain unpersuaded. 18 {5} Plaintiff also appears to argue that the district court misapprehended his 19 arguments, and as such, it should have reconsidered. [MIO 27-29] However, insofar 2 1 as Plaintiff’s arguments essentially reiterated the arguments previously set forth and 2 rejected, both by the district court and this Court in the course of the prior appeal, they 3 were properly rejected as grounds for relief under the auspices of Rule 1-060(B). See 4 DiMatteo v. Cty. of Dona Ana, 1989-NMCA-108, ¶ 25, 109 N.M. 374, 785 P.2d 285 5 (discussing the doctrine of law of the case); Lenscrafters Inc. v. Kehoe, 2012-NMSC6 020, ¶ 47, 282 P.3d 758 (holding that where the movant failed to justify the need for 7 the district court’s reconsideration based on any of the allowable Rule 1-060(B) 8 exceptions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration). 9 {6} Finally, we understand Plaintiff to contend that he should be granted some form 10 of relief in order to facilitate supplementation with transcripts from the underlying 11 proceedings. [MIO 29-31] However, because the record before us supplies all of the 12 information necessary, and the transcripts with which Plaintiff seeks to supplement 13 the record would have no impact upon our analysis, we reject Plaintiff’s argument. See 14 Udall v. Townsend, 1998-NMCA-162, ¶ 3, 126 N.M. 251, 968 P.2d 341 (explaining 15 that where the Court can obtain sufficient information from the record proper, the 16 docketing statement, and the memoranda to enable it to resolve the issues, then 17 assignment to the summary calendar is appropriate, notwithstanding the unavailability 18 of transcripts). 3 1 {7} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 2 disposition and above, we affirm. 3 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 8 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 9 10 JULIE J. VARGAS, 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.
